Right to use and wear arms

[Dimentio]

What are your feelings towards the right for a civilian to wear hand-held firearms? Do you approve it is necessary to give the people autonomy, or is it a threat against the revolution?

[RaiseYourVoice]

I totally support the right to own guns, to have them at home, to shoot them in shooting ranges etc. It not good if the state has the monopoly on guns. The more they can controll them now, the harder it gets to get your hands on them when you need them.

On the other hand i wouldn't support a right to carry guns everywhere you like. Guns escalate violent situations, and that can be very dangerous. In a pre-revolutionary situation, where you need guns everywhere, you can ignore rights and laws anyway, as the other side will do he same.

[Jaccob]

I agree, if it was completely legal for everyone to walk the streets carrying firearms we'd have a very dangerous situation, a petty misunderstanding could easily escalate into someone losing their life. But I do think that everyone has the right to own a gun, be it for home protection, shooting for sport, or other purposes. It needs to be regulated though, if a recently paroled murderer wanted to buy a gun, it would be silly to let them.

[Holden Caulfield]

i dont think people should be carrying them round with them, if i was going to get into a fight and we both had guns i'ld rather have my head kicked in or do the same to them, than kill somebody or them do the same to me out of fear of attack,

[eyedrop]

Hehe, I believe I'm abit tired today from working all night. When I read the title I read arms as those limbs that are attached to your shoulders. And wondered what weird discussions this was.


If we want to make it so that power is in the hands of the normal people we have to support measures which put physical power in the hands of normal people. Although I can't say that I'm terribly dissatisfied with the situation as it is here now, where guns are a rare occurance in everyday life. Guns have a way of escalating fights more than neccesary.

Maybe a solution, which is already in use, would be to make it illegial to carry arms in outside and require that all arms must be kept locked in a closet at home. This would help with passion-murders while still letting normal people have access to guns should it be neccesary.

[Saorsa]

I don't support any laws on guns. The capitalist state should not have a monopoly on weapons, and ideally we would be involved in organising armed workers militias to replace the pigs as the protectors of working-class communities.

As with the right to strike, the working class should have unrestricted right to bear arms, and to determine when and where to make use of this right.

[Red October]

People should be well-armed and well-trained in how to use those guns. But that doesn't mean you need to carry a .44 into a daycare center or the local pub. If you're a leftist in a situation when you'll need a gun out on the streets, you're probably already going to be doing something illegal anyway.

[Trystan]

I don't like guns, simply because they kill people. However, I do believe that civilians should be able to own them, for a number of reasons. E.g. to oppose dictatorial bourgeois/fascist/Stalinist government.

[Incendiarism]

I support the right to wear and use arms. After all, our feet are not prehensile.

[hekmatista]

The threat against the revolution in the USA at least is that so many armed working class people have self-defeating bourgeois ideas. The solution is not to restrict their access to guns (as liberals would), but to change their ideas. The children of today's redneck patriot will make the revolution.

[Cult of Reason]

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

George Orwell said the above. I absolutely oppose any restrictions, within this current society, on gun ownership and training.

[Guerrilla22]

The thing is, even with gun laws in place, guns would still be around. Restricting the types of guns people can own is pointless as well. Allowing handguns which can easily be concealed, but banning assault rifles makes no sense. A bullet is going to have the same effect no matter what type of gun it is fired from.

[MarxSchmarx]

The thing is, even with gun laws in place, guns would still be around. Restricting the types of guns people can own is pointless as well. Allowing handguns which can easily be concealed, but banning assault rifles makes no sense. A bullet is going to have the same effect no matter what type of gun it is fired from.By this logic, do you support the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons? We need to face the fact that the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan with american anti-aircraft missiles and Vietnam was won with Soviet surface to air missiles. Even before modern bombers and weapons of mass destruction, widespread gun ownership didn't help the American south from winning the civil war or the aboriginals from ousting the invaders.

[Decolonize The Left]

By this logic, do you support the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons? We need to face the fact that the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan with american anti-aircraft missiles and Vietnam was won with Soviet surface to air missiles. Even before modern bombers and weapons of mass destruction, widespread gun ownership didn't help the American south from winning the civil war or the aboriginals from ousting the invaders.

Nuclear weapons, and bombs in general, are considered 'weapons of mass destruction.' A gun is not.

The logic is simple: detonate a bomb (one action), tens to hundreds to thousands die (depending on the size) - pull a trigger (one action), one dies.

Guns ought to be legal, no restrictions. No one, I repeat no one, has a need for a nuclear weapon.

- August

[MarxSchmarx]

The logic is simple: detonate a bomb (one action), tens to hundreds to thousands die (depending on the size) - pull a trigger (one action), one dies.I fail to see why one action, one death makes guns so special. What difference does it make how many people are killed in each instant?

What about a machine gun? Moreover, is pulling a trigger six times really any more work or any less damaging (much less morally superior?) than detonating a bomb?


Guns ought to be legal, no restrictions. No one, I repeat no one, has a need for a nuclear weapon.

Sorry for being so dense, but I just do not understand the logic that says, anybody can own any type of gun they want, no matter how potentially damaging that gun ownership is, but the line drawn on weapon ownership seems extremely arbitrary and it's not obvious to me what social good is gained by drawing the line there.

My only point is that the point of this "armed citizenry" is to have parity with the state. Therefore, by this logic, individuals should have the right to own the armaments the state does. And in fact this was the case when in, for example, the United $tates the "right to bear" arms really meant individuals (or at least local militias) had military parity with the state.

[Decolonize The Left]

What about a machine gun? Moreover, is pulling a trigger six times really any more work or any less damaging (much less morally superior?) than detonating a bomb?

A machine gun requires the individual to be present during the killing, to aim, to hold the trigger down, etc... In other words, the individual is highly associated with the act of murdering other human beings.

A bomb requires nothing but pushing a button (if that - sometimes a timer does it for the individual). The individual is entirely disassociated from the act itself, and the area of damage is much larger.

- August

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Firearms are a tool that are designed to do one thing and one thing only; to kill things.
Even other "weapons" often have other uses (such as knives or bludgeoning weapons).

I don't think anybody needs to have a gun.

You will never get rid of all weapons (people can always improvise new ones), but why do you need a tool that has no other purpose then to wound and kill living things?

That said, it would not be fair to allow some citizens (such as law enforcement and armed forces) to have guns, but not others.

Back to the original point:
What are your feelings towards the right for a civilian to wear hand-held firearms?
I am against it. If you carry a gun around, you are asking for trouble.

If you are going to obtain or carry a weapon, you had better be actively planning to kill something.

If you are not planning to kill something today, forget the gun. If you killed what you were going to kill yesterday, get rid of the gun; it has served it's purpose and to keep it can only turn bad. (For the recreation/hunting crowd, I know that most of you are responsible with your firearms; keep it locked and unloaded in the cabinet, and that's fine, too.)

Guns do not protect, they kill.
If you obtain or carry said weapon for "protection", you are a coward, and an idiot.

[MarxSchmarx]

A bomb requires nothing but pushing a button (if that - sometimes a timer does it for the individual). The individual is entirely disassociated from the act itself, and the area of damage is much larger.


So?



I don't think anybody needs to have a gun.


Sure, but what's wrong with a safari and killing bambi for fun?

[Decolonize The Left]

So?

Well, an individual completely disassociated from the consequences of an act leads to abuse for there is no relationship of responsibility.

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If I decide to carry a firearm on my person in communist society, who's going to stop me?

I think people should be able to protect themselves with the best tools available. The best tool for self-defence is a personal firearm.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think anybody needs to have a gun.

Excuse me? What fucking planet do you live on? Presumably it's the planet where people are never at risk of violent and deadly assault from others.


You will never get rid of all weapons (people can always improvise new ones), but why do you need a tool that has no other purpose then to wound and kill living things?

Because other living things (people, wild animals) might try to kill me.

In self-defence, you put down your opponent in the quickest and surest way possible. This involves killing them. The best tool for this is the personal firearm, or failing that, a knife with a knuckle-gaurd.


I am against it. If you carry a gun around, you are asking for trouble.

Whereas if you carry no weapon, and your opponent does, you're dead meat.

I'd rather have a chance than be a victim.


If you are going to obtain or carry a weapon, you had better be actively planning to kill something.

Why?


If you are not planning to kill something today, forget the gun. If you killed what you were going to kill yesterday, get rid of the gun; it has served it's purpose and to keep it can only turn bad. (For the recreation/hunting crowd, I know that most of you are responsible with your firearms; keep it locked and unloaded in the cabinet, and that's fine, too.)

But what if you need to kill something tomorrow? I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than need it and not have it.


Guns do not protect, they kill.

Killing the person trying to kill you is a form of protection.


If you obtain or carry said weapon for "protection", you are a coward, and an idiot.

And if you don't carry a weapon, you're a potential victim and a criminal's wet dream.

I'd rather be labelled a "coward" and an "idiot" by liberal morons like you than end up dead.

[redarmyfaction38]

What are your feelings towards the right for a civilian to wear hand-held firearms? Do you approve it is necessary to give the people autonomy, or is it a threat against the revolution?
the revolution depends upon n armed people, that was how the vietnemese defeated american imperialism, you can defeat an army but not an armed people, it is a written right in the american constitution, every individual has the right to bear arms in the face of an unelected or unconstitutional govt. that's why successive usa govts have kept changing the constitution.
the most "civilised" countries in the world like sweden allow the the right to bear arms, they also have the lowest rates of murder and crime.
on the other hand, lenin said? "there is a worker on both sides of a bayonet".

[Das war einmal]

No not every person has the right to own a gun. And certainly not in this society. I am not for total prohibition, but regulation is necessary

[Das war einmal]

To make things clear, you have to deserve the right to own a gun, not for selfish reasons (like revenge) but only in defense for your society. When the time is ripe and people are more aware of the great responsibility to own a firearm.

[piet11111]

you can not fight a revolution with knife and fork and we will have to fight when the time comes.

besides out opponents will be able to get weapons everywhere why should we be left unarmed ?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Excuse me? What fucking planet do you live on? Presumably it's the planet where people are never at risk of violent and deadly assault from others.I do not know you, where you live, or what you do for a living, but I would bet good money that I have been attacked in the course of my job more viciously and more often then you have, yet while working I do not have the option of relying on firearms.

I do not need a gun to keep myself out of harm's way


Because other living things (people, wild animals) might try to kill me.What activities are you engaging in that provokes wild animals to attack you?



If you are going to obtain or carry a weapon, you had better be actively planning to kill something.Why?Would you carry a spatula with you anywhere you went just in case you encountered a pancake that need turning, or carry a sledge hammer in case you needed to do some quick deconstruction?

As I stated before, a weapon in not a multi-purpose tool; is is designed to hurt or kill. If you carry a weapon without the expressed goal to hurt or kill something, you are abusing that tool, and putting an unnecessary risk on yourself and others around you.


In self-defence, you put down your opponent in the quickest and surest way possible. This involves killing them. The best tool for this is the personal firearm, or failing that, a knife with a knuckle-gaurd.No, the best defense is to avoid the conflict, followed by escaping it.

If it comes to violence, then by all means defend yourselves, but if a person feels they need to carry a gun to defend themselves, they are either paranoid, or engaging in unnecessarily risky activities that draw violence to themselves.

In the unlikely chance that you are a victim of a random, unpreventable violent crime, then sorry, but there are still other solutions rather then firearms.


But what if you need to kill something tomorrow? I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than need it and not have it. Guns cause more accidents then crimes they prevent. I have witnessed this again and again.


And if you don't carry a weapon, you're a potential victim and a criminal's wet dream.Armed or unarmed, everybody's always a potential victim, and believe me, with or without a gun I am not a "criminal's wet dream".


I'd rather be labelled a "coward" and an "idiot" by liberal morons like you than end up dead.Guess what, you lose.

I can promise 100% without question that you will die.

Additionally, once dead, the person doesn't much care how they died.

The only variable that an individual really can control is the quality of life, and if one lives in fear of attacks, then I cannot see that quality of life being very high.

Perhaps rather then spending so much time, effort, and money on your precious firearms, we should spend that money on finding and eliminating factors that encourage violent crime.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do not know you, where you live, or what you do for a living, but I would bet good money that I have been attacked in the course of my job more viciously and more often then you have, yet while working I do not have the option of relying on firearms.Why not?


I do not need a gun to keep myself out of harm's wayPerhaps you live in a nice neighbourhood... not all of us are so lucky.


What activities are you engaging in that provokes wild animals to attack you?Who says any provocation on my part is needed? Nature is not all fluffy and cuddly.

Also, if I was under attack from a dog (much more likely considering where I live) I would sure appreciate being able to put it down as quickly as possible.


Would you carry a spatula with you anywhere you went just in case you encountered a pancake that need turning, or carry a sledge hammer in case you needed to do some quick deconstruction?Silly examples. Not being able to turn a pancake or knock down a wall is unlikely to endanger my life.


As I stated before, a weapon in not a multi-purpose tool; is is designed to hurt or kill. If you carry a weapon without the expressed goal to hurt or kill something, you are abusing that tool, and putting an unnecessary risk on yourself and others around you.This assumes that I have the sense of responsibility of a three year old, an assumption that's completely baseless.

I'm an adult, not a child.


No, the best defense is to avoid the conflict, followed by escaping it.Sometimes conflict cannot be avoided or escaped. What then? Beg for mercy?


If it comes to violence, then by all means defend yourselves, but if a person feels they need to carry a gun to defend themselves, they are either paranoid, or engaging in unnecessarily risky activities that draw violence to themselves.How is it paranoia rather than a healthy respect for one's own skin to want to ensure maximum success in self defence? Firearms are better than fists or knives.


In the unlikely chance that you are a victim of a random, unpreventable violent crime, then sorry, but there are still other solutions rather then firearms.Like what?


Guns cause more accidents then crimes they prevent. I have witnessed this again and again.Haven't you heard of firearms training? It's this amazing thing they invented which means that one is considerably less likely to (literally) shoot oneself in the foot.

The fact that some firearms owners have poor or nonexistant training in the use, maintenance and safety of firearms is no reason to ban personal ownership of firearms, no more than the fact that some drivers are uninsured and/or unlicenced is a reason to ban personal ownership of motor vehicles.

Comprehensive training should be a compulsory part of firearms ownership.


Armed or unarmed, everybody's always a potential victim, and believe me, with or without a gun I am not a "criminal's wet dream".You're less likely to be a victim of crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon#Research_into_the_effect s_of_concealed_carry_laws_on_crime) if you carry a firearm.

Which means if you're unarmed, you're an easy mark for violent criminals, regardless of whether the criminal is actually armed or not.


Guess what, you lose.

I can promise 100% without question that you will die.Considering that we have yet to invent an elixir of immortality, I'm not surprised.


Additionally, once dead, the person doesn't much care how they died.And? Do you intend to teach me how to suck eggs, and inform me that the sky is blue as well?

It's what you can do while you're still alive that counts.


The only variable that an individual really can control is the quality of life, and if one lives in fear of attacks, then I cannot see that quality of life being very high.Ownership of a firearm gives peace of mind in addition to it's benefits in self defence. Your attempt to paint those who own or want to own firearms as a bunch of wild-eyed paranoids is laughable.


Perhaps rather then spending so much time, effort, and money on your precious firearms, we should spend that money on finding and eliminating factors that encourage violent crime.Firearms ownership is not the enormous burden that you portray it as, and guess what - short of exterminating the human species, one will never completely eliminate violent crime in the forseeable future.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Perhaps you live in a nice neighbourhood... not all of us are so lucky.
I dont and i never did, never had an oppurtunity to use one. Also a question for you, you sound very theoretical, ARE YOU living in such a bad neighbourhood? How many times did you have to defend yourself with a gun?


Also, if I was under attack from a dog (much more likely considering where I live) I would sure appreciate being able to put it down as quickly as possible.
And you do what? as soon as a dog comes barking at you you pull a gun to its head? for animals pepper spray is the much better alternativ considering the lower danger, that its cheaper and gets you into less trouble.


Silly examples. Not being able to turn a pancake or knock down a wall is unlikely to endanger my life.
Do you always carry a medi pack? not having bandages easily endangers your life. Actually considering the chance to use a medi pack its probably WAY more likely to save your life.


Sometimes conflict cannot be avoided or escaped. What then? Beg for mercy?
Not meaning to insult any machoistic honor concepts, but if i had to choose between killing someone and begging for my life (exception is fascists) i rather beg. Actually though how many people do you think are trying to kill you? Everyone around you? Dude you are totally paranoid. In most cases pulling a gun will escalate any situation, maybe they pull a gun, they attack, they shoot, or you kill them. Maybe you shoot someone and get convicted for manslaughter. I find none of the above very appealing. The only usefull use for a gun is if you are sure the other person is after your life / might kill you, is somehow immune to descalation, soft solutions (pepper spray, taser etc.) and is still far enough away to properly pull the gun as you have to put it in a safe place, else chance is high someone takes it and points it to your head.

IN ALL OTHER situations a gun will make things worse or its too late for anything.


Firearms are better than fists or knives.
If you like to kill people and usually see the bad guys 10m before they reach you. yes.


You're less likely to be a victim of crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon#Research_into_the_effect s_of_concealed_carry_laws_on_crime) if you carry a firearm.
Really even if i would trust someones statistics who is introduced as "pro-gun scholar" which is probably just as good as "pro-cigarettes scholars", your link doesnt say that. It only says that in areas with concealed gun carriage there is less violent crime than in areas without. Saying that YOU are less likely because YOU have a gun is YOUR interpretation. When i falsified a statistic myself i come back to you.


Ownership of a firearm gives peace of mind in addition to it's benefits in self defence. Your attempt to paint those who own or want to own firearms as a bunch of wild-eyed paranoids is laughable.
WHAT? The idea that you can kill gives you peace of mind? I was only once in the situation that i was thinking about pulling my knife against someone, it was damn scary... i was happy that i knew how to defend myself without it. And that was actually while facing nazis, not even mentioning if i was facing someone i dont hate to the bones. I am training in a sport that can kill someone in a fight, i dont know anyone who thinks that the ability to kill puts you at peace. What puts me at peace is that i know when to stop, i know how to de-escalate situations, i know how to fend someone off etc. Knowing that the chances are really low that i ever have to kill is putting my mind at ease.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I dont and i never did, never had an oppurtunity to use one. Also a question for you, you sound very theoretical, ARE YOU living in such a bad neighbourhood? How many times did you have to defend yourself with a gun?

Slough has higher (http://www.findaproperty.com/crimefacts.aspx?edid=00&salerent=1&areaid=0462) rates (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/results/html/md.stm) of violent crime than the national average, so I would say yes.

I have never had the opportunity to defend myself with a gun as private ownership of firearms has been deemed illegal in our fair land by our most gracious masters. :rolleyes: However, I am confident that with appropriate training I will be able to effectively use a firearm in a self-defence scenario.


And you do what? as soon as a dog comes barking at you you pull a gun to its head? for animals pepper spray is the much better alternativ considering the lower danger, that its cheaper and gets you into less trouble.I doubt I would get into much trouble for putting down an out-of-control dog that was attacking me, but you never know these days.


Do you always carry a medi pack? not having bandages easily endangers your life. Actually considering the chance to use a medi pack its probably WAY more likely to save your life.Well, I'm not stopping you if you want to carry a medipack. I'd pick the gun myself, as at least that way I have the opportunity to take down an assailant without gaining a scratch.

A medipack can only help you after the event.


Not meaning to insult any machoistic honor concepts, but if i had to choose between killing someone and begging for my life (exception is fascists) i rather beg.Your faith in the mercy of those who choose to prey on others is misplaced, in my opinion.


Actually though how many people do you think are trying to kill you? Everyone around you?Of course not. But the fact of the matter is that it only takes one person willing to kill you to endanger your life. I consider that risk unacceptable, and wish to take appropriate measures against it.


Dude you are totally paranoid.And you live in La-La Land. I have absolutely no way of determining the motives of my attacker - so why should I take the risk? Why should I gamble with my life?


In most cases pulling a gun will escalate any situation, maybe they pull a gun, they attack, they shoot, or you kill them.Killing them is kind of the idea. There's no such thing as shooting to wound.


Maybe you shoot someone and get convicted for manslaughter.Isn't the decision to take that risk mine and not yours?


I find none of the above very appealing.Then obviously gun ownership is not for you. Don't worry, I don't intend to force anyone to carry a gun.


The only usefull use for a gun is if you are sure the other person is after your life / might kill you, is somehow immune to descalation, soft solutions (pepper spray, taser etc.) If someone is violently attacking me, my life comes before theirs. Is that clear?


and is still far enough away to properly pull the gun as you have to put it in a safe place, It's called a holster.


else chance is high someone takes it and points it to your head.This is obvious nonsense, as the reduced crime rate in CCW areas attests. If it were that easy to take someone else's gun and turn it on them (criminals are not Bruce Lee for fuck's sake), then CCWs would be useless. Their increasing popularity indicates that they are far from useless.


IN ALL OTHER situations a gun will make things worse or its too late for anything.So that's why the majority of CCW holders have ended up dead?


If you like to kill people and usually see the bad guys 10m before they reach you. yes.Don't be obtuse. Personal firearms are just as deadly at point blank range.

And it's not case "liking" to kill people. It's a case of putting my life before that of the thug that's trying to take mine.


Really even if i would trust someones statistics who is introduced as "pro-gun scholar" which is probably just as good as "pro-cigarettes scholars", your link doesnt say that. It only says that in areas with concealed gun carriage there is less violent crime than in areas without. Saying that YOU are less likely because YOU have a gun is YOUR interpretation. When i falsified a statistic myself i come back to you."pro-gun" doesn't mean "dishonest". Have you any evidence that John Lott was lying?

So the fact that CCWs were introduced had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it?

It is a fact that legal ownership of firearms, including concealed carry, is strongly correlated with reduced crime rates. How dare you deny it?


WHAT? The idea that you can kill gives you peace of mind?The fact that I have a better chance of surviving a violent encounter is what gives me peace of mind.


I was only once in the situation that i was thinking about pulling my knife against someone, it was damn scary... i was happy that i knew how to defend myself without it. And that was actually while facing nazis, not even mentioning if i was facing someone i dont hate to the bones.Violent encounters are never pleasant and I strongly hope that nothing I said implied that was the case.


I am training in a sport that can kill someone in a fight, i dont know anyone who thinks that the ability to kill puts you at peace.If being able to kill disturbs you so much, why are you practising a sport that gives you that ability?


What puts me at peace is that i know when to stop, i know how to de-escalate situations, i know how to fend someone off etc.What if you can't de-escalate the situation? What do you do then? What if your assailant is bigger and stronger than you are?

I've seen some wench blokes in my time, but I've yet to meet one that was bulletproof.


Knowing that the chances are really low that i ever have to kill is putting my mind at ease. But what if was a case of you or them? Wouldn't you rather it be you that walks away from it?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

. . .yet while working I do not have the option of relying on firearms.Why not?Because it looks bad when healthcare workers go on a rampage.


Perhaps you live in a nice neighbourhood... not all of us are so lucky.Perhaps you've heard of East St. Louis; one of the poorest and most decadent neighbourhoods is the U.S.

I do not claim it's like 110th Street in Harlem, South-side Chicago, or Soho London, but East St. Louis is so crap-tastic that Aaron McGruder (author of the Boondocks) wrote a graphic novel about it.

Crime East Saint Louis:
Murder 83.8
Rape 251.3
Robbery 1,347.0
Assault 5,847.3
Burglary 2,442.8
Auto Theft 2,067.5
National Average:
Murder 6.9
Rape 32.2
Robbery 195.4
Assault340.1
Burglary 814.5
Auto Theft 526.5

Check these numbers, and ESL out-murders Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and New Orleans.
(Info. available here (http://www.city-data.com) )


Who says any provocation on my part is needed? Nature is not all fluffy and cuddly. . .This would be the mentality that led to the extinction of the wolf on the British Isles.

Nature does not attack unprovoked; especially in urban areas.

If you leave animals alone, unless you live in the Amazon or something, they will leave you alone.


Silly examples. Not being able to turn a pancake or knock down a wall is unlikely to endanger my life.Okay, do you carry an automated external defibrillator or a syringe of epinephrine with you? Those could save your life.


This assumes that I have the sense of responsibility of a three year old, an assumption that's completely baseless.

I'm an adult, not a child.Why is that assuming you have the responsibility of a 3year old?


Sometimes conflict cannot be avoided or escaped. What then? Beg for mercy?Compliance is often the best way to buy time. Ask anybody who has ever worked as a clerk.

If it is a true sociopath who wants absolutely nothing but to hurt you, or it truly otherwise was unavoidable (revenge is the number one cause of violence), I have absolutely no problem with violence as a last means to defend yourself.


How is it paranoia rather than a healthy respect for one's own skin to want to ensure maximum success in self defence? Firearms are better than fists or knives.It is paranoia to dwell on the assumption that others want to hurt you.



In the unlikely chance that you are a victim of a random, unpreventable violent crime, then sorry, but there are still other solutions rather then firearms.Like what?If the assailant wants something, such as a burglar, give it to them. What is the few dollars/euros in your pocket worth? You life? A complete stranger's life?

There is always time afterward to resolve matters.

If what they want is to hurt you and nothing more (such as rape, murder), then run off or hide, call for assistance, etc.

If this, too is not an option (say you're trapped in a restroom) then, as I've said before in this post, and multiple posts, then violence as a last resort is a viable option. Even then, a gun is not your only option (pepper-spray, improvised weaponry, trained or untrained hand combat, etc.), but few will fault you if you use a firearm; assuming it's not unnecessary force (such as if they are unarmed or if they give up.)


Haven't you heard of firearms training?. . .Accidents include not only yourself, but those around you. A responsible adult with a curious child is asking for trouble.

Even a responsible adult without children who becomes startled may unnecessarily use their firearm.
I have encountered this twice; once a woman was walking home alone and shot an unarmed man who wanted to ask her for coffee (she thought he was stalking her, and without even letting him speak, she made the first move.)
Another time, a man shot his roommate who he thought was a burglar. His friend left his keys in the apartment. The shooter left later and locked the door. When he returned to see someone crawling in through the window, he shot him in the ass.


You're less likely to be a victim of crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon#Research_into_the_effect s_of_concealed_carry_laws_on_crime) if you carry a firearm.

Which means if you're unarmed, you're an easy mark for violent criminals, regardless of whether the criminal is actually armed or not.A concealed weapon is hidden. If an assailant does not know you're armed, why avoid you?

Show me a reputable source, and I'll read it. Wikipedia is a good place to find external links to university studies or whatever, but using it a the source is a load of crap.


And? Do you intend to teach me how to suck eggs, and inform me that the sky is blue as well?

It's what you can do while you're still alive that counts.So why do you dwell so much on how you're going to die?


Ownership of a firearm gives peace of mind in addition to it's benefits in self defence. Your attempt to paint those who own or want to own firearms as a bunch of wild-eyed paranoids is laughable.And you attempt to patronize me as a naive, undereducated individual is condescending and unfounded (although I must say I expected more civil conduct from a mod.)

I say we call it a wash.


Firearms ownership is not the enormous burden that you portray it as, and guess what - short of exterminating the human species, one will never completely eliminate violent crime in the forseeable future.There are people who live in nice, clean, quiet suburban neighbourhoods where the neighbours know each other.

I know this is true; I've been to these places.

In Canada there is public housing where the poorest live, but many do not even lock their doors, and they let their children play outside unattended.

Why is it unreasonable or wrong to want this security for everybody, no matter where they live?

Yes, even in these places occasionally there is a violent crime, but if the crime rates were kept so low, why take such drastic precautions?

[RaiseYourVoice]

I have never had the opportunity to defend myself with a gun as private ownership of firearms has been deemed illegal in our fair land by our most gracious masters. :rolleyes: However, I am confident that with appropriate training I will be able to effectively use a firearm in a self-defence scenario.
So you have no idea about owning or using a gun? You do sound like it.


Well, I'm not stopping you if you want to carry a medipack. I'd pick the gun myself, as at least that way I have the opportunity to take down an assailant without gaining a scratch.

A medipack can only help you after the event.

Car crash, getting shot / stabbed from behind, cutting yourself somewhere... i'd rather have a medi pack. You dont seem want to protect your life but rather life out a gun fetish.


And you live in La-La Land
Ya thats why i have 6 years of karate training, 2 years of krav maga, choose my clothing so i can move fast and carry pepper spray if needed. All not because i read on wikipedia that its usefull but actually street approved.


It is a fact that legal ownership of firearms, including concealed carry, is strongly correlated with reduced crime rates. How dare you deny it?
Yea i dare deny that cuz i saw statistics that guns are more likely to kill a family member than protect you, cuz i know what escalates and what de-escalates a situation. And of course i dont just believe any statistic. That there is a connection between guns laws and low crime rates DOES NOT mean that one is the reason for the other.


If being able to kill disturbs you so much, why are you practising a sport that gives you that ability?

Because i might need to. But really knowing what hits kill is just a bi-product of the training.


What if you can't de-escalate the situation? What do you do then? What if your assailant is bigger and stronger than you are?
Well i would say run, you of course will say what if i cant run. So i guess i get beat up. But really if you can defend yourself, shout for help and dodge a few hits, its pretty unlikely that someone would want to kill you.


But what if was a case of you or them? Wouldn't you rather it be you that walks away from it?
Yes of course, but not at the cost of escalating a situation that could have been solved otherwise. And well with knowing self defence, de-escalation and being aware of your surroundings the chance that i still get in that kind of situation is lower then anything else, like getting hit by a car, falling of my bike or any getting a heart attack.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it looks bad when healthcare workers go on a rampage.

Killing in self-defence is going on a rampage now? Or do you not trust yourself enough with a firearm?


Perhaps you've heard of East St. Louis; one of the poorest and most decadent neighbourhoods is the U.S.

I do not claim it's like 110th Street in Harlem, South-side Chicago, or Soho London, but East St. Louis is so crap-tastic that Aaron McGruder (author of the Boondocks) wrote a graphic novel about it.That's pretty bad. I would definately want to take precautions in such an area. Maybe you feel differently. But that's no excuse to deny me my chosen form of self-defence.


This would be the mentality that led to the extinction of the wolf on the British Isles.

Nature does not attack unprovoked; especially in urban areas.

If you leave animals alone, unless you live in the Amazon or something, they will leave you alone.Most bear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_dec ade) and cougar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America_by_d ecade) attacks in North America appear to be unprovoked, or if they were provoked then the victim was not aware of it.

Of course, in Britain I have the human animals to fear the most, but dogs come a pretty close second.


Okay, do you carry an automated external defibrillator or a syringe of epinephrine with you? Those could save your life.No, since I am young and healthy and therefore not at risk of a fatal heart attack. I'm much more likely to be attacked by someone else than have a sudden, inexplicable failure of the old ticker.

If I was much older and my previous lifestyle made a heart attack more likely, then it would be silly not to take precautions.


Why is that assuming you have the responsibility of a 3year old?Because merely carrying around a tool does not significantly increase the danger - you have to do something stupid like fuck about with it, point it at things you don't intend to shoot (perhaps the number one cause of firearms accidents!), and shit like that.


Compliance is often the best way to buy time. Ask anybody who has ever worked as a clerk.Risking one's life for money or goods that doesn't belong to you is one thing - just letting someone take what little money you have is quite another.


It is paranoia to dwell on the assumption that others want to hurt you.:confused: How am I "dwelling" on that assumption? This is a thread talking about the private ownership of firearms, the issue of self-defence is almost certain to come up. It did, and now we're talking about it.

I haven't actually discussed this issue in a long time - I admit it is refreshing to talk about something else with someone else.

But me? Paranoid? I've told you why I think deadly force is acceptable in self-defence - I'm not a mind-reader, so I have no way of knowing what their intentions are. Why should I risk my life, when I'm not the one attacking somebody just going about their business?


If the assailant wants something, such as a burglar, give it to them.If I had a firearm and somebody tried to rob my residence while I was present, then they're getting one warning before I start shooting.


What is the few dollars/euros in your pocket worth? You life? A complete stranger's life?If the money in my pocket pays for my food for the rest of the week, then I'll take the risk. I'm not going hungry just because some scumbag decides to violently prey on others.


There is always time afterward to resolve matters.How?


If what they want is to hurt you and nothing more (such as rape, murder), then run off or hide, call for assistance, etc.Not always possible.


If this, too is not an option (say you're trapped in a restroom) then, as I've said before in this post, and multiple posts, then violence as a last resort is a viable option. Even then, a gun is not your only option (pepper-spray, improvised weaponry, trained or untrained hand combat, etc.), but few will fault you if you use a firearm; assuming it's not unnecessary force (such as if they are unarmed or if they give up.)I would think that even the most desperate unarmed assailant would back off if they got a .45 shoved in their face... If they're criminally insane (attacking an armed person while one is unarmed probably counts) or off their face on some drug and/or decide to attack me anyway, then they're getting plugged.


Accidents include not only yourself, but those around you. A responsible adult with a curious child is asking for trouble.Good thing I don't have any children or work with any then, isn't it?


Even a responsible adult without children who becomes startled may unnecessarily use their firearm.
I have encountered this twice; once a woman was walking home alone and shot an unarmed man who wanted to ask her for coffee (she thought he was stalking her, and without even letting him speak, she made the first move.)
Another time, a man shot his roommate who he thought was a burglar. His friend left his keys in the apartment. The shooter left later and locked the door. When he returned to see someone crawling in through the window, he shot him in the ass.Accidents happen. That's no reason to prohibit personal ownership of firearms. The thing to do is to do our best to mitigate those accidents.


A concealed weapon is hidden. If an assailant does not know you're armed, why avoid you?Because you might be armed. Concealed carry protects not only those actually carrying, but also to a degree those who don't carry. Concealed carry makes violent crime a more dicey proposition for the criminal. Why do you think crime rates went down?


Show me a reputable source, and I'll read it. Wikipedia is a good place to find external links to university studies or whatever, but using it a the source is a load of crap.Are you too fucking lazy to check the citations?


So why do you dwell so much on how you're going to die?I don't. I'm talking about it in this thread because, what the fuck? it happens to be the topic! You're the one going on about how it's 100% certain that I'll die.


And you attempt to patronize me as a naive, undereducated individual is condescending and unfounded (although I must say I expected more civil conduct from a mod.)

I say we call it a wash.The sun doesn't shine out of my fucking arse so I don't pretend it does. I calls them how I see them. If I think you're unfairly categorising those who own or desire to own firearms as swivel-eyed loonies, then I'll call you out on it.


There are people who live in nice, clean, quiet suburban neighbourhoods where the neighbours know each other.

I know this is true; I've been to these places.Good for them! If only all of us could be so lucky... or rich.


In Canada there is public housing where the poorest live, but many do not even lock their doors, and they let their children play outside unattended.Why bother locking the doors when A) there's nothing worth stealing anyway and B) they break in through the windows anyway?


Why is it unreasonable or wrong to want this security for everybody, no matter where they live?It isn't. But it doesn't mean that you'll get it.


Yes, even in these places occasionally there is a violent crime, but if the crime rates were kept so low, why take such drastic precautions?Because the violent crime happens even if it is rare, and spending some time and money making doubly sure can't hurt.


So you have no idea about owning or using a gun? You do sound like it.

Considering that I made it into the Army Cadets Shooting Team, I'd say you're dead wrong.


Car crash, getting shot / stabbed from behind, cutting yourself somewhere... i'd rather have a medi pack. You dont seem want to protect your life but rather life out a gun fetish.1) What's to stop you keeping a medipack in your car? It sounds like an immanently sensible idea.

2) A gunshot or stab wound to the back would not be mitigated by a medipack. There's a reason they train soldiers to stab enemy sentries in the kidneys.

3) Where are you most likely to cut yourself? At home or at work - places where it be sensible to have a medipack lying around (in fact, most workplaces have to have them by law if I'm not mistaken).

4) The fact that I wish to own one (1) firearm for the purposes of self-defence makes me a "gun fetishist" now? Good grief.


Ya thats why i have 6 years of karate training, 2 years of krav maga, choose my clothing so i can move fast and carry pepper spray if needed. All not because i read on wikipedia that its usefull but actually street approved.Firearms training is quicker, and not everyone is fit enough to do martial arts.


Yea i dare deny that cuz i saw statistics that guns are more likely to kill a family member than protect you, cuz i know what escalates and what de-escalates a situation.Yes, you're a expert negotiator as well as a kung-fu master :rolleyes:

Excuse me for sneezing, I'm allergic to bullshit.


And of course i dont just believe any statistic. That there is a connection between guns laws and low crime rates DOES NOT mean that one is the reason for the other.[deep sarcasm]No, of course not. Violent criminals just decided to take a bit of a holiday at the same time CCWs were introduced, it was a total coincidence.[/deep sarcasm]


Because i might need to. But really knowing what hits kill is just a bi-product of the training.And killing people is just by-product of the ability to shoot straight.


Well i would say run, you of course will say what if i cant run. So i guess i get beat up. But really if you can defend yourself, shout for help and dodge a few hits, its pretty unlikely that someone would want to kill you.You don't know that! you're not a mind reader, so if you're being attacked why take the chance?


Yes of course, but not at the cost of escalating a situation that could have been solved otherwise. And well with knowing self defence, de-escalation and being aware of your surroundings the chance that i still get in that kind of situation is lower then anything else, like getting hit by a car, falling of my bike or any getting a heart attack. Not all of us are top-rate diplomats with black belts. God may not have created man, but Sam Colt certainly did make them equal.

[black magick hustla]

To be honest, the leftist obsession in the first world with carrying guns is really silly. Maybe in the 18th or 19th century where civilian insurrectionists could manage to stay in the same technological level as the state. However, I doubt that in the US guns could be used with anything except killing a stray cop or your gilfriend's hidden lover. Certainly not against the SWAT team, the FBI, or god forbid, the army.

A revolutionary situation in this places will need a good chunk of the army - like it or not.

[Comrade B]

I ordinarily carry a large knife or two on me. I also keep a few knives in my car for my friends if we are going into parts of town we are not so welcome in, or if we expect trouble. One of my close friends and a political follower of mine keeps two long knives on me when I am drinking.

In a communist society I would oppose the sale of firearms. The government would regulate them very strictly and have a count of where every one is.

In the US, I love their gun policy. They supply countries that hate them guns nice and easy for revolutions and resistance.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Killing in self-defence is going on a rampage now? Or do you not trust yourself enough with a firearm?Think about it. When a citizen shoots somebody, it is quickly forgotten.

When a cop shoots somebody, no so much. Even when the cop follows protocol, the media hypes it up. If there is even a shadow of doubt that the cop acted imperfectly, then there is a scandal.

Why? Because in our society, we are told the police are there to protect us. Whether or not that is really the case is a different thread, and unimportant here; the reason it is more upsetting to people when a cop resorts to violence is because since they are children, they are told to trust the police.

Think what people would think if a healthcare worker shot somebody. In society people are taught to trust healthcare workers more then their own family members often times.

Few people would strip naked and allow their family to stick sharp objects into their body simply because a family member asked them too.

Think of the breach of trust the community would feel if a public servant that they have been told to trust and, quite frankly, obey without question preformed such a hypocritical action such as to harm a life rather then preserve it.

The reason the Dr. Kevorkian issue upset so many people; not because he helped people die, but because he was a doctor.

It does not matter what the actual situation was; if a heathcare worker shot somebody on duty, people (including myself) would shun the individual and the healthcare field as brutal, vicious, and guilty of not giving the patient the (psychiatric) care they obviously desperately needed.

In healthcare, there is no judge, jury, or executioner. We don't chose who to treat or how. One rule that we have to follow from both legal and ethical standpoints is to not to do any further harm to the patient once they have entered our care.

It has been a long time since I had a shift where I didn't have at least one psych patient, and these patients often are non-compliant or even combative. However, the most we can do in such a case is strap them to the gurney (trolley) and radio the Dr. asking to administer diazepam. In one extraordinary case (the patient was easily 300lbs and violent), I asked a police officer to take the patient into custody and drive them to the nearest psych ward themselves.

Even after 12, 18, even 24 hours strait of thankless work, I would never harm a patient intentionally in any way, no matter how much spit, piss, or punches they threw at me.


No, since I am young and healthy and therefore not at risk of a fatal heart attack. I'm much more likely to be attacked by someone else than have a sudden, inexplicable failure of the old ticker.You know, I treated a 20 year old cardiac patient about 2 weeks ago.
She thought she was healthy, too.


If I was much older and my previous lifestyle made a heart attack more likely, then it would be silly not to take precautions.So you would carry an AED and epi? Sure.


Because merely carrying around a tool does not significantly increase the danger - you have to do something stupid like fuck about with it, point it at things you don't intend to shoot (perhaps the number one cause of firearms accidents!), and shit like that.Chance of a gun going off with a responsible operator: low.

Chance of a gun going off with no gun present: somewhat lower.


Risking one's life for money or goods that doesn't belong to you is one thing - just letting someone take what little money you have is quite another.Perhaps they have less.

Sure, the decent thing to do would be ask for your money, or ask somebody with money to spare.

But what are the chances they would get any money that way?


:confused: How am I "dwelling" on that assumption? This is a thread talking about the private ownership of firearms, the issue of self-defence is almost certain to come up. It did, and now we're talking about it.You dwell on the assumption that others want to hurt you when you take extra precautions to counter a scenario where a person wants to hurt you.

In order to carry a firearm, and assuming you follow proper lawful regulations, you must make several deliberate actions, including contemplation, selecting and buying the weapon, filling out the paperwork and registering for the weapon, waiting for a background check, depending on your jurisdiction registering for a "concealed carry license", and of course arming yourself every morning.

Every person instinctively takes precautions to minimize their own personal risk (check traffic, avoid gang-infested streets, buckle for safety, lock doors), but when they do it typically takes moments, not days.


If the money in my pocket pays for my food for the rest of the week, then I'll take the risk. I'm not going hungry just because some scumbag decides to violently prey on others.Again, how do you know it's a scumbag preying on others? It could be a mentally-ill individual who does not comprehend the world outside their heads. It could be an act of desperation from a person hungry themselves. Perhaps it is a violent scumbag, but you don't know that for sure.

You don't have a chance to ask them for their life story, and yes, if it was they who provoked the attack, you're the victim. But life is not black and white; you automatically assume that anybody that attacks or threatens you should forfeit their life?

That logic sounds like the perpetual global political world, if you ask me.


I would think that even the most desperate unarmed assailant would back off if they got a .45 shoved in their face... If they're criminally insane (attacking an armed person while one is unarmed probably counts) or off their face on some drug and/or decide to attack me anyway, then they're getting plugged.So anybody that is not sane/sober enough to back down from a .45 deserves to die.

Got it.


Because you might be armed. Concealed carry protects not only those actually carrying, but also to a degree those who don't carry. Concealed carry makes violent crime a more dicey proposition for the criminal. Why do you think crime rates went down?Where did crime rates go down, how much did they go down, and what proof do you have that an uncontrollable variable did not skew the numbers?


Are you too fucking lazy to check the citations?They're you're sources, why didn't you post them?

You need to stop with the personal attacks. I don't care if you're a mod, this is a socialist political forum; there is no elite. If you can't reduce the number of ad hominems, then either calm down before you post, or just stay out of the discussion.

I directed my points in third person up until the response before this one (because you had twice directed responses directly to myself.) Perhaps I wrote something you took exception at, but you could have calmly posted or PMed me explaining what and why it offended you, and I would probably have apologised.

I look forward to intelligent discussion and debate; that is why I am a RevLeft member. If I wanted verbal abuse, there are many places on the internet where I can turn to for that.


I don't. I'm talking about it in this thread because, what the fuck? it happens to be the topic! You're the one going on about how it's 100% certain that I'll die.I direct you to an earlier quote:

I'd rather be labelled a "coward" and an "idiot" by liberal morons like you than end up dead.I was simply pointing out that it matters little what you do today, you will not be around forever.

I just wanted to encourage you to enjoy your life as it is, and don't dwell on your unavoidable conclusion.


The sun doesn't shine out of my fucking arse so I don't pretend it does. I calls them how I see them. If I think you're unfairly categorising those who own or desire to own firearms as swivel-eyed loonies, then I'll call you out on it.I never, implied, or even thought that (granted you'll have to take my word for that.)

You're the one who has gotten defensive, and since you yourself admit you are not perfect, why are you judging others with such vigour?


Good for them! If only all of us could be so lucky... or rich.So are poor people in Canada are "lucky" or "rich"?


Why bother locking the doors when A) there's nothing worth stealing anyway and B) they break in through the windows anyway?People in the U.S. and where I had been in the U.K. lock their doors, even when they had nothing to take.

Not locking doors is a sign that the individual feels safe in their current environment.



Why is it unreasonable or wrong to want this security for everybody, no matter where they live?It isn't. But it doesn't mean that you'll get it.Not with attitudes like that, anyway.


Because the violent crime happens even if it is rare, and spending some time and money making doubly sure can't hurt.So making it "rare, but existent" to "rarer, but still existent".

I have better things to do with my time, and the accidents that would be prevented are not worth to me that extra "-r" at the end of "rare".

[EvigLidelse]

I wouldn't personally speak in the terms of the revolution, but guns are a huge responsibility that often leads to more bad than good. Just look at Sweden where I live, you don't often hear about gun murders or robberies, nor any situations where guns could be a better self defense than any martial art or doing some better choices that don't get you into that situation where you have to defend yourself...

[RaiseYourVoice]

Yes, you're a expert negotiator as well as a kung-fu master :rolleyes:

Excuse me for sneezing, I'm allergic to bullshit.de-escalation is not negotiation. I usually dont meet terrorists or get taken hostage. If you do, well then you should not buy a gun but rather not leave the house.


And killing people is just by-product of the ability to shoot straight.Oh, then you should get a life, cuz wasting your time to shoot straight... well everyone got their hobbies.


You don't know that! you're not a mind reader, so if you're being attacked why take the chance?I always take chances that are so incredibly low that only paranoid people prepare for that. I actually sometimes cross streets without looking! That is probably endangering my life 1000 times more then not wearing a gun.


Not all of us are top-rate diplomats with black belts. God may not have created man, but Sam Colt certainly did make them equal.Such a statement from someone claiming to be progressive makes me end this discussion here and now.

[Demogorgon]

One has to wonder what kind of paranoia it takes to make people think they should carry guns around with them.

I am reminded of how out of hand things are getting in London, with kids feeling they need to carry knives to fell safe, but of course carrying knives actually puts them at far greater risk.

As for guns, listening to people go on about their need for a phallic substitute can get really dull.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

One has to wonder what kind of paranoia it takes to make people think they should carry guns around with them.I wonder about the mentality of "gun-grabbers" too. We each have our own mysteries to ponder.


I am reminded of how out of hand things are getting in London, with kids feeling they need to carry knives to fell safe, but of course carrying knives actually puts them at far greater risk.You actually believe the bullshit the authorities put on those posters? Do you believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too?


As for guns, listening to people go on about their need for a phallic substitute can get really dull.Sometimes a firearm is just a firearm. Why do people like you insist on bringing penises into any conversation about guns?

[Demogorgon]

You actually believe the bullshit the authorities put on those posters? Do you believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too?It is a plain fact. You can look them up if you want. Not to mention it is just plain common sense. Do you ever do anything except sit behind your computer regurgitating slogans from American Conservative websites? If you actually go out into the real world and-horror of horrors-end up in a confrontation, a weapon is the last thing you want. Ninety Nine times out of a hundred it simply escalates things badly. I can tell you with complete confidence that if I had been carrying a weapon during an of the confrontations I have had, my chances of siting here uninjured would be much lower.


Sometimes a firearm is just a firearm. Why do people like you insist on bringing penises into any conversation about guns?
It is kind of difficult to avoid the subject, isn't it? Come to think of it, I remember reading that when they did one of these surveys as they do to determine average penis sizes of each countries, they found that countries where the average size was below the world median had a much greater tendency to have a gun obsessed culture.

Bringing it back home somewhat, the statements you are making here about how you would do all these tough guy things with a gun screams to me, if not Freudian issues, at the very least "internet tough guy syndrome". I have a lot more respect for people who are simply candid about who they are than idiots who feel the need to talk as if they are Rambo from the safet of behind their monitors.

[redarmyfaction38]

It is a plain fact. You can look them up if you want. Not to mention it is just plain common sense. Do you ever do anything except sit behind your computer regurgitating slogans from American Conservative websites? If you actually go out into the real world and-horror of horrors-end up in a confrontation, a weapon is the last thing you want. Ninety Nine times out of a hundred it simply escalates things badly. I can tell you with complete confidence that if I had been carrying a weapon during an of the confrontations I have had, my chances of siting here uninjured would be much lower.

It is kind of difficult to avoid the subject, isn't it? Come to think of it, I remember reading that when they did one of these surveys as they do to determine average penis sizes of each countries, they found that countries where the average size was below the world median had a much greater tendency to have a gun obsessed culture.

Bringing it back home somewhat, the statements you are making here about how you would do all these tough guy things with a gun screams to me, if not Freudian issues, at the very least "internet tough guy syndrome". I have a lot more respect for people who are simply candid about who they are than idiots who feel the need to talk as if they are Rambo from the safet of behind their monitors.
ENOUGH!!!
your revolutionaries FFS!
think about the crap you have been posting.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF WORKING CLASS PEOPLE DO NOT COMMIT CRIME, DO NOT DEAL DRUGS OR SHOOT UP THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
if ordinary workers were given the right to "bear arms", the lumpen proles and drones would NOT be able to destroy our working class communities through fear and violence, the lumpen proles rely on the fact that the capitalist state denies us our right to defend ourselves, in fact, the capitalist state, depends on the actions of its lumpen allies to keep us dependant on its forces of law and order to defend us from a bunch of criminals that reflect the bourgeouisies own attitudes to our class and the bourgeouisie own morality.
an armed working class is an essential element of a free workers state, without it, a new bourgeouisie would inevitably arise and all gains of a workers revolution would eventually be rolled back.
or have you missed the last 80 years of history?
the right to bear arms will be enshrined in the constitution of any workers state.
i hope it will be a constitutional demand.
guns don't kill people, the bigoted and self interested scum bags that hold them do in todays capitalist society.
the mass of people, given a revolutionary situation and its consequent leap forward in understanding demands the arming of the proletariat.

[Demogorgon]

THE VAST MAJORITY OF WORKING CLASS PEOPLE DO NOT COMMIT CRIME, DO NOT DEAL DRUGS OR SHOOT UP THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
Indeed, so people need to drop their cowardly fear of other people and stop arming themselves to go out and do their shopping


an armed working class is an essential element of a free workers state, without it, a new bourgeouisie would inevitably arise and all gains of a workers revolution would eventually be rolled back.

In case you haven't noticed, the United States gives working class people the perfect right to carry firearms and it has not stopped the American working class from being hit harder than in most other Western countries.

Guns have their place. They can be used for sport, and of course in some parts of the world there are dangerous animals that make going out into the wilderness unarmed a risky proposition.

But the notion that people should carry weapons around as a matter of course must end. It is destroying communities and hurting so many people.

People need to stop thinking in the abstract about weapons and look out the front door to see the harm that carrying weapons causes in their own communities.

[Red_Dialectics]

It is easy to argue against the need for self-defense if you have not been in a dangerous situation. Not to say that I have, or any of you haven't, but I'd like to think that my life is worth protecting more than that of a money-obsessed criminal driven to violence. I think the answer is simple: if you do not feel the need to defend your life, then don't. We are not suggesting that you do. Seriously, if you have a problem with owning a gun then you shouldn't own one! I think that in a pre-revolutionary situation, arming of the people is essential, this should be obvious. And after a revolution, there should be no restrictions, but compulsory education for all. Guns are only a problem and only lead to improper use when people are irresponsible with them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is a plain fact. You can look them up if you want. Not to mention it is just plain common sense.

No, it's hype from the most senile elements of the ruling class. When the capitalist ruling class was younger and a bit more rational, they thought nothing of the private ownership of firearms. If weapons were as dangerous to their owners as you seem to make out, nobody would own them, not even criminals - supposing one of their victims turns their knife/gun on them?


Do you ever do anything except sit behind your computer regurgitating slogans from American Conservative websites?Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


If you actually go out into the real world and-horror of horrors-end up in a confrontation, a weapon is the last thing you want.:rolleyes: Because as we know, no armed person has ever survived an encounter with a violent criminal, and unarmed people are never robbed or murdered.


Ninety Nine times out of a hundred it simply escalates things badly.I have no reason to believe that you pulled this statement from anywhere but your backside.


I can tell you with complete confidence that if I had been carrying a weapon during an of the confrontations I have had, my chances of siting here uninjured would be much lower.And I had to threaten someone with a screwdriver before the fucker would leave me alone.


It is kind of difficult to avoid the subject, isn't it?No it isn't. It didn't even enter my mind until you brought it up in an attempt to belittle me.


Come to think of it, I remember reading that when they did one of these surveys as they do to determine average penis sizes of each countries, they found that countries where the average size was below the world median had a much greater tendency to have a gun obsessed culture.Utter garbage.


Bringing it back home somewhat, the statements you are making here about how you would do all these tough guy things with a gun screams to me, if not Freudian issues, at the very least "internet tough guy syndrome"."tough guy things"? Women can pull triggers too, you know.

And I have no reason to believe they are worse than men at "skill at arms".


I have a lot more respect for people who are simply candid about who they are than idiots who feel the need to talk as if they are Rambo from the safet of behind their monitors.I'm simply telling you that if I had access to a firearm, I would use it. If you think that's a bunch of "Rambo" nonsense, then that's your problem.

[redarmyfaction38]

Indeed, so people need to drop their cowardly fear of other people and stop arming themselves to go out and do their shopping

In case you haven't noticed, the United States gives working class people the perfect right to carry firearms and it has not stopped the American working class from being hit harder than in most other Western countries.

Guns have their place. They can be used for sport, and of course in some parts of the world there are dangerous animals that make going out into the wilderness unarmed a risky proposition.

But the notion that people should carry weapons around as a matter of course must end. It is destroying communities and hurting so many people.

People need to stop thinking in the abstract about weapons and look out the front door to see the harm that carrying weapons causes in their own communities.
i can't agree with you, i carried a knife from the age of 5, i've never stabbed anyone, used my knife to carry out a criminal act etc.
this gun/knife crime shit is just that shit, in the uk, we live in a society that is safer from violent crime or crime in general than it ever has been.
me, an ordinary worker, can no longer carry a knife, which i would use for work purposes or recreation.
it's wrong.

[Demogorgon]

No, it's hype from the most senile elements of the ruling class. When the capitalist ruling class was younger and a bit more rational, they thought nothing of the private ownership of firearms. If weapons were as dangerous to their owners as you seem to make out, nobody would own them, not even criminals - supposing one of their victims turns their knife/gun on them?Carrying weapons hasn't been legal here since God knows when. When the oldest members of the ruling class were young, the problem was razor gangs, and the laws concerning them were tougher than they are now.


Even a broken clock is right twice a day.The trouble is that you seem to find them right all the time. You have barely made a statement in months that would have looked out of place on free republic.


:rolleyes: Because as we know, no armed person has ever survived an encounter with a violent criminal, and unarmed people are never robbed or murdered.No, but those who do not carry weapons certainly have a better chance of not getting into a situation where somebody gets very badly hurt.

"tough guy things"? Women can pull triggers too, you know.

And I have no reason to believe they are worse than men at "skill at arms".
They can, but pathetic macho grunting about how tough you are and how you would have no problem killing someone is very much a wannabe "tough guy" thing.

I'm simply telling you that if I had access to a firearm, I would use it. If you think that's a bunch of "Rambo" nonsense, then that's your problem.
You probably wouldn't use a gun, very few people actually have it in them to kill. If you would use it then you have a problem and should certainly be kept away from weapons of all kinds. However if I were to put money on it, I would say you could not use a gun against another human being.

Macho rants about how you would impress absolutely nobody. It just makes you sound insecure.

[chimx]

In the US it is 100% legal for anybody to openly carry a fire arm. I definately support this and think it is extremely important.

Almost every state however requires permits to carry concealed weapons, which is unfortunately handled by the Police Department.

I also would not hesitate to use my own gun against another person trying to harm me or my family.

[Red_Dialectics]

In Vermont (where I live), it is legal for anyone over the age of 16 to carry concealed, no permit necessary.

[freakazoid]

By this logic, do you support the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons? This is one of the most stupidest arguments I hear sometimes. How many people do you know that has the money to buy one, or the facilities and man power to manufacture them?


Firearms are a tool that are designed to do one thing and one thing only; to kill things.NO they are not. First of all they are disigned to push a chunk of metal downrange. Some people collect them. Some people use them for target shooting. Some people use them for self defense. Are you going to tell me that people buy cap and ball revolvers to kill?


I am against it. If you carry a gun around, you are asking for trouble.Simply carrying one around is not asking for trouble.


Guns do not protect, they kill.Sometimes killing the perp is protecting.


If you obtain or carry said weapon for "protection", you are a coward, and an idiot.No, your not.


What activities are you engaging in that provokes wild animals to attack you?Are you an idiot?


As I stated before, a weapon in not a multi-purpose tool;Yes, a firearm is a multi-purpose tool as stated before. And a weapon is not a weapon until it is used as one.


No, the best defense is to avoid the conflict, followed by escaping it.No, the best defense is often a great offense.


Guns cause more accidents then crimes they prevent. I have witnessed this again and again.Really? I haven't witnessed this at all. But I have witnessed vehicles being in many accidents. Perhaps we should ban those. While I will not put up the statistics because I am to lazy, I have posted them before in another thread on firearms, there has been something in the millions of people injured a year due to them.


Armed or unarmed, everybody's always a potential victim, and believe me, with or without a gun I am not a "criminal's wet dream".A criminal would prefer an unarmed victim, you would be an idiot to think otherwise.


And you do what? as soon as a dog comes barking at you you pull a gun to its head? Your an idiot. A dog merely barking is not necessarily a threat and you know it.


Do you always carry a medi pack? not having bandages easily endangers your life. Actually considering the chance to use a medi pack its probably WAY more likely to save your life.I carry a basic one in my car with plans on getting a better one in the future.


In most cases pulling a gun will escalate any situation, maybe they pull a gun, they attack, they shoot, or you kill them.And your point?


If you like to kill people and usually see the bad guys 10m before they reach you. yes.Man, where do you get this stuff?


It only says that in areas with concealed gun carriage there is less violent crime than in areas without.Which would mean the YOU are less likely to be a victim, duh.


Because it looks bad when healthcare workers go on a rampage.What does this have to do with anything?


Nature does not attack unprovoked; especially in urban areas.Yes, it does.


Compliance is often the best way to buy time.Compliance is a great way to get yourself killed.


I have absolutely no problem with violence as a last means to defend yourself.Sure would of been nice to have a firearm at that point.


It is paranoia to dwell on the assumption that others want to hurt you.It is idiocy to think that no will want to hurt you.


If the assailant wants something, such as a burglar, give it to them.Rape too? If they want something they are going to have to fight for it. I choose to not be a victim.


A complete stranger's life?Apparently the perp thought it was worth his life to steal something of mine.


call for assistance, etc.That way once the police show up they will of gotten there just in time to draw the chalk line. And are you seriously saying we should rely on the police for protection?


A responsible adult with a curious child is asking for trouble.A responsible adult would of taught his child safety.


I have encountered this twice; once a woman was walking home alone and shot an unarmed man who wanted to ask her for coffee (she thought he was stalking her, and without even letting him speak, she made the first move.)
Another time, a man shot his roommate who he thought was a burglar. His friend left his keys in the apartment. The shooter left later and locked the door. When he returned to see someone crawling in through the window, he shot him in the ass.So because accidents happen we should ban the object? So I am assuming that you do wish to ban vehicles?


A concealed weapon is hidden. If an assailant does not know you're armed, why avoid you?Because why risk the chance that the victim could be armed?


Car crash, getting shot / stabbed from behind, cutting yourself somewhere... i'd rather have a medi pack. You dont seem want to protect your life but rather life out a gun fetish.A medpac can only be used AFTER you are hurt.


and carry pepper spray if needed.You carry pepper spray!? Man you sound paranoid. :rolleyes:


Yea i dare deny that cuz i saw statistics that guns are more likely to kill a family member than protect you, cuz i know what escalates and what de-escalates a situation. And of course i dont just believe any statistic. That there is a connection between guns laws and low crime rates DOES NOT mean that one is the reason for the other.Have you ever seen the statistics between gun crime in DC, extremely anti-gun, and right across the river, extremely not anti-gun?


Certainly not against the SWAT team, the FBI, or god forbid, the army. Resistince is not futile. The .gov is not some unstoppable force. Bullets still do hurt them. While they may have better technology, sometimes, they still have weaknesses.


Think about it. When a citizen shoots somebody, it is quickly forgotten....What does this have to do with anything?


Chance of a gun going off with a responsible operator: low.

Chance of a gun going off with no gun present: somewhat lower.Chance of being killed by a vehicle with a responsible operator: A little higher than low.

Chances of a vehicle killing someone when they are all banned: Somewhat lower.

Are you saying that vehicles should be banned?


including contemplation, selecting and buying the weapon,Sometimes hours, days, or even weeks. But this is only to make sure I have a quality product, just like when I buy anything. Duh.


filling out the paperwork and registering for the weapon,Only a few minutes.


waiting for a background check,Only for a few minutes.


depending on your jurisdiction registering for a "concealed carry license",Depends on where you live. In South Dakota it was only a few minutes. In Kansas you have to take a safety class, so however long that takes. And in Alaska and Vermont no time at all because you don't need a license to carry.


and of course arming yourself every morning.Only a few seconds.


Again, how do you know it's a scumbag preying on others? It could be a mentally-ill individual who does not comprehend the world outside their heads. It could be an act of desperation from a person hungry themselves. Perhaps it is a violent scumbag, but you don't know that for sure.What does it matter what kind of person they are? The fact is is that they want to hurt you.


So anybody that is not sane/sober enough to back down from a .45 deserves to die.It is not about what they deserve, it is about what is going to happen. Because if they continue to come at you they are a threat.


That is probably endangering my life 1000 times more then not wearing a gun.Then why do you do it?


As for guns, listening to people go on about their need for a phallic substitute can get really dull.I have noticed it is only the antis that do the comparing. What does a firearms have anything to do with a phallic substitute? I use my penis for peeing. And what about women that like firearms?


Indeed, so people need to drop their cowardly fear of other people and stop arming themselves to go out and do their shoppingSome people need to drop there cowardly fear of armed people.


In case you haven't noticed, the United States gives working class people the perfect right to carry firearms and it has not stopped the American working class from being hit harder than in most other Western countries.I suppose you are also under the illusion that anybody can own and carry any kind of firearm they want in the US huh.



People need to stop thinking in the abstract about weapons and look out the front door to see the harm that carrying weapons causes in their own communities.I haven't caused any harm carrying mine so I don't know what kind of illusions you are seeing.


No, but those who do not carry weapons certainly have a better chance of not getting into a situation where somebody gets very badly hurt.What? Those who do not carry put themselves in a situation where they are more likely to not come out of a dangerous situation alive.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Guns cause more accidents then crimes they prevent. I have witnessed this again and again.Really? I haven't witnessed this at all. But I have witnessed vehicles being in many accidents. Perhaps we should ban those. While I will not put up the statistics because I am to lazy, I have posted them before in another thread on firearms, there has been something in the millions of people injured a year due to them.
I'm not even going to address most of the crap you posted since it is heavily based on opinions and ad hominems, but this reply caught my eye.

What accidents have you been involved in? What is you expertise? Why should we care about what you have experienced?

I am an emergency medical technician, and until this Monday (I start with a new company), my "beat" has been a rather poor and violent neighbourhood in a major metropolitan area (East St. Louis, as mentioned by myself earlier.)

I think my experiences count for something when it comes to accidents that result in injuries or fatalities.

[freakazoid]

I'm not even going to address most of the crap you posted since it is heavily based on opinions and ad hominems, but this reply caught my eye.

You only replied to one. And where are the ad hominem attacks? You don't want to address them because you would rather win the debate by refusing to take part in it because that is the only way you can win.


What accidents have you been involved in?

I have personally been in 2.


I am an emergency medical technician,

Good for you, that is a very commendable career choice, but I don't see how that gives you an expertise in firearms. All you witness are the accidents. It is like a cop saying that we should live in a police state because all they witness are the bad things in humanity.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

You only replied to one. And where are the ad hominem attacks? You don't want to address them because you would rather win the debate by refusing to take part in it because that is the only way you can win.No, I don't address them because it's a waste of my time; I'm not going to bother getting in a "debate" with someone who relies almost exclusively on fallacies.

In fact, that statement was a fallacy, too ("you don't want to address them because. . .blah, blah").

Ad hominems:

Are you an idiot?
A criminal would prefer an unarmed victim, you would be an idiot to think otherwise.
Your an idiot. A dog merely barking is not necessarily a threat and you know it.
It is idiocy to think that no will want to hurt you.etc.

Other fallacies:

No, the best defense is often a great offense.(no supporting argument)


Nature does not attack unprovoked; especially in urban areas.Yes, it does.(same as above)


If the assailant wants something, such as a burglar, give it to them.Rape too? If they want something they are going to have to fight for it. I choose to not be a victim.I specifically addressed rape as an exception in my post. You chose to miss that, and quoted a fragment; another fallacy.

A responsible adult would of taught his child safety.Until a certain age (past toddler), children do not understand the concepts required; at an older age (adolescence), they do not care (many adolescents go through a rebellious stage, and are likely to play with guns simply to rebel.)

So because accidents happen we should ban the object? So I am assuming that you do wish to ban vehicles?Fallacy; changing the subject.

You carry pepper spray!? Man you sound paranoid.Another ad hominem I missed before

Chance of being killed by a vehicle with a responsible operator: A little higher than low.

Chances of a vehicle killing someone when they are all banned: Somewhat lower.

Are you saying that vehicles should be banned?Again, chaning the subject

Etc.


Good for you, that is a very commendable career choice, but I don't see how that gives you an expertise in firearms. All you witness are the accidents. It is like a cop saying that we should live in a police state because all they witness are the bad things in humanity.pWhen people are shot, they seek medical help (whether an accident or not, crime scene or not; even when the patient is obviously dead, for legal reasons, an EMT must respond to the scene, do an evaluation, and wait for the coroner or a doctor to pronounce the patient dead.)
In almost every gunshot patient I have had, it has been revenge. After that, accidents. Only once or twice has a patient of mine been an unprovoked assailant.

[redarmyfaction38]

You only replied to one. And where are the ad hominem attacks? You don't want to address them because you would rather win the debate by refusing to take part in it because that is the only way you can win.



I have personally been in 2.



Good for you, that is a very commendable career choice, but I don't see how that gives you an expertise in firearms. All you witness are the accidents. It is like a cop saying that we should live in a police state because all they witness are the bad things in humanity.
right, as a revolutionary, the first thing you should accept, is that you, as an individual, have accepted responsibility, both as an individual and member of your class.
having accepted that responsibility, you have realised that is the social conditions that determine the actions of your fellow human beings.
social conditions are determined by the ruling class, those social conditions lead to criminality amongst your fellow human beings as they try to acheive the material gains of the capitalist class and adopt their methods and morals in order to do so.
so, a gun or a knife, becomes a short cut to wealth and prosperity, an individual copying the actions of its master in order to attain social standing and personal wealth.
the ruling class, in itself, does not feel threateneed by gun or knife crime, why should it, as you said, it is not the victim, working class communities are.
the truth is, the ruling class, are investing in the fear of working class communities of gun and knife crime, not to deal with the conditions that cause criminal actions or the selfish, self interested disregard for communities that these actions reflect, but to make damn sure any attempt by these communities to protect themselves from the perverted caitalist agendais left without the means to defend itself.
from another angle, i'm a third dan martial artist, i don't need a gun or a knife to kill someone, do you propose the govt. would be right to cut off my hands and feet to prevent me doing so? or would you support the banning of martial arts?
watch it, that's avery barbed question.

[Josef Balin]

i dont think people should be carrying them round with them, if i was going to get into a fight and we both had guns i'ld rather have my head kicked in or do the same to them, than kill somebody or them do the same to me out of fear of attack,
It doesn't work like that, you just end up not provoking someone.

Texas allowed people to carry concealed weapons and their gun crime rate went DOWN. If someone has a 50/50 shot of carrying a weapon, people tend to not mug.

Also, as communists ,we should be EXTREMELY pro-gun. Imagine if almost the entire populace of the USSR was armed when Gorbachev was implementing his reforms.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

It doesn't work like that, you just end up not provoking someone.

Texas allowed people to carry concealed weapons and their gun crime rate went DOWN. If someone has a 50/50 shot of carrying a weapon, people tend to not mug.

Also, as communists ,we should be EXTREMELY pro-gun. Imagine if almost the entire populace of the USSR was armed when Gorbachev was implementing his reforms.Then rather then being a non-communist society without guns they would have become a non-communist society with guns?

[freakazoid]

In fact, that statement was a fallacy, too ("you don't want to address them because. . .blah, blah").

It's not a fallacy it is an observation. Same thing with calling you an idiot in certain instances. How can you believe that people only get attacked when they provoke an animal? That simply is not true. And because you are willfully ignorant on things like that I call you an idiot.


(no supporting argument)

Do you really want me to start talking about stratagy? Plus that is a well known phrase, didn't figure that I needed to say more.


I specifically addressed rape as an exception in my post. You chose to miss that, and quoted a fragment; another fallacy.

I actually saw the rape part later on and thought that I had corrected it. Not only that but the rest of that was seperate from the rape case and had to do with the rest of your post.


Until a certain age (past toddler), children do not understand the concepts required; at an older age (adolescence), they do not care (many adolescents go through a rebellious stage, and are likely to play with guns simply to rebel.)

This subject would require more time than I currently have.


Fallacy; changing the subject.

No, it is not changing the subject, a red hering I believe. What I am duing is showing you how dangerous of a slippery slope it is by following your line of logic. Plus, isn't this whole thing of yours by not wanting to adress my points so you try to change the subject to calling everything a fallacy one big red hering?


Another ad hominem I missed before

Your the one who is calling people paranoid for wanting to defend themselves and then you contradict yourself by saying you carry pepperspray. NO, it is not an ad hominem.


When people are shot, they seek medical help (whether an accident or not, crime scene or not; even when the patient is obviously dead, for legal reasons, an EMT must respond to the scene, do an evaluation, and wait for the coroner or a doctor to pronounce the patient dead.)
In almost every gunshot patient I have had, it has been revenge. After that, accidents. Only once or twice has a patient of mine been an unprovoked assailant.

Again, my cop example on wanting a police state because all they see are the worst in humanity.

You see, it is you who is trying to change the subject by refusing to debate the actual content of what I have said and just calling it all a fallacy.

[chimx]

There are other countries that have more gun owners than the US, but have lower murder rates and gun violence rates. Banning a gun isn't going to change the reasons why people feel the need to act out.

Personally I don't tolerate anybody that tries to take my guns away. They are not comrades of mine in the slightest.

[Guerrilla22]

By this logic, do you support the right of individuals to own nuclear weapons? We need to face the fact that the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan with american anti-aircraft missiles and Vietnam was won with Soviet surface to air missiles. Even before modern bombers and weapons of mass destruction, widespread gun ownership didn't help the American south from winning the civil war or the aboriginals from ousting the invaders.


I'm talking about guns, you're going off on a tangent about nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers, ect. Guns are not weapons of mass destruction. The average person cannot launch a nuclear weapon, nor are nuclear weapons widely avaible. My point is that guns are like drugs, you could choose to outlaw them, however it would be pointless, since they would still be prevlent, due to the large volumes of fire arms avaible. My argument is not about the efficiency of weapons, but rather pragmatism regarding gun laws.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

It's not a fallacy it is an observation. Same thing with calling you an idiot in certain instances. How can you believe that people only get attacked when they provoke an animal? That simply is not true. And because you are willfully ignorant on things like that I call you an idiot.You obviously then do not know or understand what a fallacy or ad hominem is.

I'm done with you; say what you will; I'm not going to embarrass myself or justify your arguments (to yourself exclusively, I'm sure) by responding to such sloppily conjured dribble (past this post.)

Do yourself and everybody else a favour and sit in a debate club meeting or take an introductory philosophy or public speaking class and learn how to argue and not simply skirt the issue.

If you consider my tone here condescending, tough nuts; it has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions or stance, but rather your delivery, which is unacceptable in an intelligent conversation.

Indeed, I am completely willing to listen and consider arguments that oppose my own; that is the reason I am a RevLeft member, have been for a long time, and shall continue to do so.

However, I will only dignify such arguments when they are not wrapped in a malicious context, and the member who presents said argument respects myself and my own opinions as I do theirs (consider chimx's contributions to this thread, for example. I disagree, but I respect what he has to say, and if he wanted to go back and forth with arguments, it would be my pleasure.)

Only with mutual respect will any argument or debate show any benefit for any party involved.

[freakazoid]

You obviously then do not know or understand what a fallacy or ad hominem is.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is. If I had blew everything you had said off simply because I think you are an idiot, then that would be an ad hominem. But I don't, I explained everything still.


I'm done with you; say what you will; I'm not going to embarrass myself or justify your arguments (to yourself exclusively, I'm sure) by responding to such sloppily conjured dribble

Sloppily conjured dribble? Where do you get this BS? Oh and what you are doing would be an ad hominem.


Do yourself and everybody else a favour and sit in a debate club meeting or take an introductory philosophy or public speaking class and learn how to argue and not simply skirt the issue.

I was in debate class in high school for 2 or 3 years. And I am not the one skirting the issues. YOU are the one trying to divert the attention away from the arguments by trying to make this into an argument about fallicies, which is a red hering.


Indeed, I am completely willing to listen and consider arguments that oppose my own;

Apparently not because you are diverting this discussion into one about fallacies.


However, I will only dignify such arguments when they are not wrapped in a malicious context,

When someone wishes to steal my rights from me, I tend to get a little pissed off. Same thing with racists.

Now why don't you stop trying to derail this discussion and debate what I had actually said.

[redarmyfaction38]

You obviously then do not know or understand what a fallacy or ad hominem is.

I'm done with you; say what you will; I'm not going to embarrass myself or justify your arguments (to yourself exclusively, I'm sure) by responding to such sloppily conjured dribble (past this post.)

Do yourself and everybody else a favour and sit in a debate club meeting or take an introductory philosophy or public speaking class and learn how to argue and not simply skirt the issue.

If you consider my tone here condescending, tough nuts; it has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions or stance, but rather your delivery, which is unacceptable in an intelligent conversation.

Indeed, I am completely willing to listen and consider arguments that oppose my own; that is the reason I am a RevLeft member, have been for a long time, and shall continue to do so.

However, I will only dignify such arguments when they are not wrapped in a malicious context, and the member who presents said argument respects myself and my own opinions as I do theirs (consider chimx's contributions to this thread, for example. I disagree, but I respect what he has to say, and if he wanted to go back and forth with arguments, it would be my pleasure.)

Only with mutual respect will any argument or debate show any benefit for any party involved.
totally off topic.
i read your quotes:thumbup:

[redarmyfaction38]

Then rather then being a non-communist society without guns they would have become a non-communist society with guns?

the point is, i think, as it's getting late, had the proletariat been armed, the kind of reforms that destroyed all the gains of the russian revolution for the working masses, could not have been sold by gorbachov and his counter revolutionary successors to private gangsters (formerly leadsing members of ujs cp) and international capitalists.
soz, bedtime. could, possibly explain better, but need sleep and got work in the morning:lol:

[KrazyRabidSheep]

the point is, i think, as it's getting late, had the proletariat been armed, the kind of reforms that destroyed all the gains of the russian revolution for the working masses, could not have been sold by gorbachov and his counter revolutionary successors to private gangsters (formerly leadsing members of ujs cp) and international capitalists.
soz, bedtime. could, possibly explain better, but need sleep and got work in the morning:lol:
Perhaps. We will never really know.

I understand what you say, but in such a resistance as you describe (or any revolution or resistance), weapons are only a tool. The people would have to have the courage, desire, and ambition to resist.

Just because the people have guns does not mean that they want to resist; take the United States as an example. Add as many guns as you wish, it will not encourage the people to revolt (otherwise it would have happened by now, surely?)

Education, willpower, and (usually) leadership are the catalyst of a resistance or revolution, not weaponry.

[ellipsis]

Wow this thread has dissolved into a nice back and forth...

Check out a zine called Politicians Love Gun Contro (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2008/04/politicians-love-gun-control-best-zine.html)l. the author reframes the gun debate in America for the radical left.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wow. For once, I agree with chimx.

[freakazoid]

And I'm agreeing with NoXion, is this the sign of the apocalypse? :scared: I'm scared.

[John Lenin]

In my view Marxists shouldn't support gun control.

It only makes class war more difficult.

[redarmyfaction38]

Perhaps. We will never really know.

I understand what you say, but in such a resistance as you describe (or any revolution or resistance), weapons are only a tool. The people would have to have the courage, desire, and ambition to resist.

Just because the people have guns does not mean that they want to resist; take the United States as an example. Add as many guns as you wish, it will not encourage the people to revolt (otherwise it would have happened by now, surely?)

Education, willpower, and (usually) leadership are the catalyst of a resistance or revolution, not weaponry.
i understand fully what you are trying to say about the usa, but the predominant cultural and political messages are those that potray guns as a means for self enrichment rather than self protection.
it doesn't matter whether you listen to fox news telling you about the success in iraq? how your local police blew away the local drug dealer or your local (sold out) rapper telling you how he and his homies got rich by killing people and "singing" about it.
that is not a gun problem, it is a "cultural" or lack of "culture" problem.
it is the ideology of capitalism.
the questions we should be asking imo are who makes the guns, who promotes their indiscriminate use etc.
i would also like to apologise, i didn't mean at any time to be abusive or disingenuous, i was just trying to put a different perspective.