weapons and their utility

[danyboy27]

what are your opinions about the creation of weapon in a communist society?
do you think it should be totally prohibited or we should still manufacture them?

should we only building small arms or not putting any veto on the construction of weapons, and lets anybody built weapon of they want to?
should we stop the building of attack bomber and tanks, limits their production or simply put some heavy restruction on it?

you can use the exemple of both state and community, so at the end, even anarchists can confortably answer to this.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

All I can say is that Texas will always have small arms, even if they have to start a revolution to keep 'em.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

what are your opinions about the creation of weapon in a communist society?

They are necessary both for internal security and external defence.


do you think it should be totally prohibited or we should still manufacture them?Even if all manufacturing of weapons were to cease in one area, someone would still bring them in from elsewhere.


should we only building small arms or not putting any veto on the construction of weapons, and lets anybody built weapon of they want to?Bulding anything more complicated than a submachine gun is way beyond the capabilities of a single person with a machine shop.


should we stop the building of attack bomber and tanks, limits their production or simply put some heavy restruction on it?As I said in another thread:

"Nuclear weapons are a potent force magnifier. Strategic nuclear weaponry allows one to target hardened targets within enemy territory, wiping out army bases, airfields, naval docks and bunkers in a single strike. Tactical nuclear weaponry can increase the firepower of a battalion, bomber squadron or naval task force by at least one order of magnitude so that they are capable of wiping out entire army divisions, air wings or naval fleets. With an appropriate warhead yield and delivery system, tactical scale units are capable of delivering strategic scale firepower.

I believe that this force magnification via nuclear weaponry will be an essential weapon in the armoury of a post-revolutionary society. With the increased miniaturisation of computers since the Cold War, designing adequate targeting systems will be a relatively small challenge, and even if we produced nuclear warheads for everything from ballistic missiles all the way down to recoilless rifles (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29) assigned to every battalion, supplies of uranium and other fissionables for civilian purposes would not be significantly affected - and even less so if most of our energy comes from renewables. Also, we can avoid impoverishing ourselves by making the most of dual-use technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use) such as civilian vehicles that can be rapidly retro-fitted for military purposes, civilian space programs, GPS networks etc.

Just as it perverse to deny the victims of imperialism the means to defend themselves, so it would be foolish of ourselves in the extreme to deliberately muzzle our potential. Very few nations have the ability to do this on their own, and since world revolution is out of the question (think about it) it seems likely that such a program would be easily within the reach of a revolutionary Eurasia, Latin America and what have you. Without the bloat of the bourgeouis military structure, we can have both sharp teeth and full bellies."

If it is possible to maintain a reasonable degree of technological parity with any remaining capitalist powers as the above scenario implies, then yes. Otherwise we'd just be wasting our time and resources, and it would be better to concentrate our manufacturing capabilities solely on manufacturing large amounts of small arms, MANPADS, anti-tank weapons, mortars, crew-served weapons, and other highly portable, easily mass-produced weapons.

[Forward Union]

They need to be distributed as evenly as possible. We dont want monopolies or concertrations of guns.

[Ele'ill]

Or we could build a time machine and go back and change everything and bring dinosaurs through the portal so we can ride them around like those dinoryder cartoons/action-figures from the mid 1980's. Although in all honesty I really enjoyed the dinotopia books. I also enjoyed Calvin and Hobbes albeit a seperate story that i'll save for another thread.

[redguard2009]

The importance of weapons to the masses is critical.

Of course nobody needs to personally own a tank or JDAM or cruise missile. In my belief the most important aspect of the relationship between the people and weaponry should be that all weaponry must be under the responsibility of the people. Closed-door military academies and headquarters should be abolished; we should have a say in how our weapons are built and how and why they are used. I think the issue of universal armament is a thing of a past; when the ideals of every man having the right to bear arms, the only advantage a centralized governmental military had over a mass of armed civilians were negligable. Today, governmental militaries, especially those of the largest imperialist countries, are able to individually devestate most of the surface of this place, and combined they are fully capable of bringing an end to this planet's existence. Compared to that, being armed with a glock or a hunting rifle seems pathetic -- a Remington shotgun isn't going to do rat's ass against an Abrams tank rolling through your town.

Therefore the adoption of a "People's Army", which is fully connected to the established people's representative power, is necessary, in order to ensure that those weapons of mass destruction can not be used against us by our so-called leaders.

[Comrade B]

In a communist country we must have a strong military to prevent western terrorism, invasion, and funded counter-revolution. Build tanks, jets, everything in that category, however there is no use for fire arms in one's home. What reason does one have for a weapon if the government is actually doing its duty to serve all people of their country.
The military needs guns, certain police branches need guns, and that is really all there is.


even if they have to start a revolution to keep 'em.
Good thing they are only small arms. This is where the manufacturing of tanks comes in handy.

[Mindtoaster]

\What reason does one have for a weapon if the government is actually doing its duty to serve all people of their country.
\tanks comes in handy.

The point is to make sure the government keeps doing just that. I believe all citizens should remain armed, especially after the revolution to make sure the means of production remains in the worker's hands.

And even if the revolution is successful what would be the point of taking them away? If all material needs are met, its not like they will start using them on each other. People may still want to hunt and such, etc... Theres no need to start taking guns away from the citizenry, under any condition.

[danyboy27]

The point is to make sure the government keeps doing just that. I believe all citizens should remain armed, especially after the revolution to make sure the means of production remains in the worker's hands.

And even if the revolution is successful what would be the point of taking them away? If all material needs are met, its not like they will start using them on each other. People may still want to hunt and such, etc... Theres no need to start taking guns away from the citizenry, under any condition.


where i see a problem is, if there is no professional army, what actually avoid a bunch of brutal and well armed stalinists to take over?

and dont say me the people, many armed folks might stay at home in fear of what might happen to their families if they try to move.

to my perspective, a bunch of armed civilian is nothing against a well trained, well organized military force.
hoo sure they can kill a fews, but at the end the number of civilian killed will be just horrible.
The Roman often faced numerous groups of armed civilians, and no matter how numerous they where, it didnt stopped the roman from annexing their territories.

that basicly why i am actually supporting Organized armies, both professional and conscript.

[Comrade B]

its not like they will start using them on each other
There are always crazies, there are also racists, fascists, and other nasty boogie men out there. The first generation under communism will not be completely reformed, not everyone will support it, and the country must do what it can to prevent these bad guys from ruining the progress.


People may still want to hunt and such
People also may still want to drive luxury cars. Too bad.


The point is to make sure the government keeps doing just that.
This never works out. If the government wants to stop doing its job, it does. A country makes laws to prevent it from falling, the whole point is to make it stable... unless you are an anarchist...

[danyboy27]

There are always crazies, there are also racists, fascists, and other nasty boogie men out there. The first generation under communism will not be completely reformed, not everyone will support it, and the country must do what it can to prevent these bad guys from ruining the progress.


People also may still want to drive luxury cars. Too bad.


This never works out. If the government wants to stop doing its job, it does. A country makes laws to prevent it from falling, the whole point is to make it stable... unless you are an anarchist...

scary words in bold.
i love the way your version of communism mean to force something on other peoples and deprive them of liberty. that not something we see often here.
REFORM THEM! FORCE THEM TO BE DIFFERENT!
BANISH LUXURY CAR

Many collegues argues that restraining liberty is against the basic communist laws.

i guess you are not a communist then.

[Killfacer]

Reforming generations?

Shall we also send people who don't like communism to "learn" about communism in a "holiday camp" some where in Siberia?

You make the borg seem like a good allegory for communism.

[Comrade B]

BANISH LUXURY CAR
Where do you think we are getting luxury cars from? In a society in which we create our own wealth for our currency, how likely do you think we will be of granting everyone a Mercedes Benz?


i love the way your version of communism mean to force something on other peoples and deprive them of liberty.
Property is not a right, it is theft.


Many collegues argues that restraining liberty is against the basic communist laws.

i guess you are not a communist then.
Many dip shits think that communism and democracy are opposites, I guess that I must not be a communist there too...
Listen ass hole, before you go around declaring people capitalists, consider that I am probably not the same ideology as you. We disagree on things.


REFORM THEM! FORCE THEM TO BE DIFFERENT!
What percent of Americans do you think currently identify with communism?
What percent do you think think communism is bad?
What percent do you think do not know the difference between communists and Nazis?
If you honestly think that everyone out there is already willing to throw their full support behind communism and do all their work for the purpose of benefiting society, you need to look out the fucking window. There are greedy people. They exist, and they are why we are not currently in a communist country.
Sure, there are people that steal food and radios to sell to support themselves, or feed an addiction they have picked up to help them through the pain of living in a shitty society, and they will be helped massively by a communist future, but think of the white collar criminals. The rich that steal only for the sake of being richer. It takes very little for them to forget morals in the place of wealth, and yes, they do need to be reeducated, just as the British did to former Nazi POWs during WWII.

[Mindtoaster]

Where do you think we are getting luxury cars from? In a society in which we create our own wealth for our currency, how likely do you think we will be of granting everyone a Mercedes Benz?



We're talking about a rifle, not a $200,000 sports car

Almost all cultures on Earth hunt, its not something you should just take away because for some reason unbeknown to me you think people in a communist society shouldn't have guns.

You have stated why you think they don't need them, not why they should not be able to have them

[RebelDog]

They need to be distributed as evenly as possible. We dont want monopolies or concertrations of guns.

If we reach real global free-communism what need is there for weapons? if there is always to be a state of fear of reaction then it is not libertarian communism. I don't want to fight forever, I want to live.

[Hiero]

Nothing is prohibited in Communism. No state no classes. Products are manafuacted based on need and societies ability to produce them. So for if we are producing guns for pleasure, it depends on societies ability to produce them.

[danyboy27]

Where do you think we are getting luxury cars from? In a society in which we create our own wealth for our currency, how likely do you think we will be of granting everyone a Mercedes Benz?


actually, many people here, and i do believe it, that if the world reach a complete communist phase, there will be surplus, and i got many tehorist here telling me that it would be possible for people to have costom car.






Property is not a right, it is theft.

many people in the commie Club argued that communism would allow property of some sort, like they told me communism would mean that the mean of production will be in worker hand, not that people would lost their right of property.




Many dip shits think that communism and democracy are opposites, I guess that I must not be a communist there too...
Listen ass hole, before you go around declaring people capitalists, consider that I am probably not the same ideology as
never done that, but your way of looking at the things scares me, that all.




What percent of Americans do you think currently identify with communism?
What percent do you think think communism is bad?
What percent do you think do not know the difference between communists and Nazis?
If you honestly think that everyone out there is already willing to throw their full support behind communism and do all their work for the purpose of benefiting society, you need to look out the fucking window. There are greedy people. They exist, and they are why we are not currently in a communist country.

but you cant achieve communism without having the majority on your side, otherwise it would implies that a minority will seize power, and impose their way of things over the rest of the population, and that dictatorship. i will NEVER be for imposing my way of thinking over a minority, on the other hand, if lets say 60/70% of the population actively support socialism/communism, that another thing.

are you really willing to impose YOUR ideology over people while you would be aware that only a minority support you?

you got balls bob.

[Hiero]

Spetnaz21, why don't you go read something and come to your own informed position. All you do on this site is play little schools games and think it is a reasonable position, all I see from you is "he said, she said". Recently you have become one of the worst posters on here.

Here is a hint, go read a book and develop, rather then latching on to half baked ideas.

[Comrade B]

You have stated why you think they don't need them, not why they should not be able to have themThey are unsafe to have in the hands of some people. There would be very little need for a weapon to protect yourself in a true communist system because crime is mostly a product of poverty, however there are still criminals who are insane, and kill because of that insanity. Hunting is not not enough of a reason in my mind to allow people weapons which a lunatic could get as well.


So for if we are producing guns for pleasure, it depends on societies ability to produce them.Maybe if we did have the potential to create a large amount of luxury goods, weapons for recreational purposes could be on that list, however I would still support them being highly supervised and kept in hunting clubs while not in use.

Personally, I prefer my Honda Accord EX Coup with its sun roof customized sound system and temperature control up to a rifle...


actually, many people here, and i do believe it, that if the world reach a complete communist phase, there will be surplus, and i got many tehorist here telling me that it would be possible for people to have costom car.Until the whole world is communist, our currency would have very little value outside of our country. There are more important things to be producing than the fanciest cars around.


right of property.There is no right to property. You are taking something which should be given equally to all members of society, and hording it to yourself. You can own something, but only if others have the potential to earn it as well. Also, if your country needs that thing back, you are to give it back, for the purpose of supporting the greater good of society.
For private property to exist, one must say, in the face of their comrade's needs, "No, you cannot have this, I enjoy it and have a greater right to enjoy it than you"


but you cant achieve communism without having the majority on your sideAnd I didn't say that I think there would be a revolution any time soon in the US.


lets say 60/70% of the population actively support socialism/communism, that another thing.30% of the US still disagreeing with you would be (from 2007 numbers) 90,341,984.1 people. That is still a lot of people who may try to resist you. Let's try a smaller example, how about the more left sided Germany. That would be 24,720,298.8 people still resisting you.


are you really willing to impose YOUR ideology over people while you would be aware that only a minority support you?I use the US as an example. No country in the world has a 100% approval rating of communism. I doubt there is one with 90%... by the way, that 10%, in terms of the US, is 30,113,994.7

Feel free to double check the statistics in case I got something wrong... even if I did, the numbers will still be quite large

[Mindtoaster]

They are unsafe to have in the hands of some people. There would be very little need for a weapon to protect yourself in a true communist system because crime is mostly a product of poverty, however there are still criminals who are insane, and kill because of that insanity. Hunting is not not enough of a reason in my mind to allow people weapons which a lunatic could get as well.

Maybe if we did have the potential to create a large amount of luxury goods, weapons for recreational purposes could be on that list, however I would still support them being highly supervised and kept in hunting clubs while not in use.

Personally, I prefer my Honda Accord EX Coup with its sun roof customized sound system and temperature control up to a rifle...


If someone is seriously a lunatic they aren't going to be turned away from killing because they don't have a gun. They would probably just reach for the nearest rope or knife.

And yes, I know its an old, overused argument, but it is still true, *especially* when we are talking about mad-men. To murder someone, you really have to want to do, to the point that not having a gun available isn't gonna stop you.

And yeah, I have Hyundai Sonata which is basically in the same price category or your car, but we're talking thousands of dollars difference from a rifle. Automatic weapons can be bought for 600 dollars, and what I'm talking about is just bolt-action hunting rifles. They're cheap, easily mass manufactured goods. IE: The Moisen-Nagant.

[cop an Attitude]

sadly, they are needed. In a revolutionary world guns are obviously needed but even after the fighting has stopped and there is a communist society, they are still needed. People wont just magicly forget about firearms. Right wing radicals, criminals and dissenters would most likly take arms so they will need to be produced. maybe giving them to the community and then sharing them amongst the residents may be a solution.

[Comrade B]

If someone is seriously a lunatic they aren't going to be turned away from killing because they don't have a gun. They would probably just reach for the nearest rope or knife.
This is why I support an armed police force. Also, it is much easier to kill large numbers of people with a gun than it is with a knife. Imagine if the Washington DC snipers a few years back didn't have a gun; they wouldn't have killed near as many people


to the point that not having a gun available isn't gonna stop you.
In a situation where someone is thrown into a state of blind rage, it is much easier for them to shoot a person than to kill them with their hands. If this could just save a couple of lives, I think it is worth it.


And yeah, I have Hyundai Sonata which is basically in the same price category or your car, but we're talking thousands of dollars difference from a rifle. Automatic weapons can be bought for 600 dollars, and what I'm talking about is just bolt-action hunting rifles. They're cheap, easily mass manufactured goods. IE: The Moisen-Nagant.
alright, I admit that my example is a bit over the top, but my point is that there are luxuries for the same amount of production work that are more valuable to me personally.

I get a lot of my values from my parents. My dad grew up in Ozone Park, so I have to say, I don't know many stories of people being saved because of the gun they carry with them, but I have heard plenty of people like cousin Ronnie ending up dead on Christmas morning and Uncle Guy getting his ass kicked for not paying off poker debts.


Right wing radicals, criminals and dissenters would most likly take arms so they will need to be produced. maybe giving them to the community and then sharing them amongst the residents may be a solution.
Why not just restrict the weapons to the military? They could probably handle the counter-revolutionaries much better than a militia, and also there is less of a chance of the weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In a situation where someone is thrown into a state of blind rage, it is much easier for them to shoot a person than to kill them with their hands. If this could just save a couple of lives, I think it is worth it.

No no no no NO! Why the should the majority be denied weapons because of a criminal minority? Why should responsible firearms owners take the flak for criminals?

Even in the US, the vast majority of legal gun owners are not criminals. Therefore to deny them ownership of firearms is the act of a tyrant.


I get a lot of my values from my parents. My dad grew up in Ozone Park, so I have to say, I don't know many stories of people being saved because of the gun they carry with them, but I have heard plenty of people like cousin Ronnie ending up dead on Christmas morning and Uncle Guy getting his ass kicked for not paying off poker debts.Anecdotes =/= data.


Why not just restrict the weapons to the military? They could probably handle the counter-revolutionaries much better than a militia, and also there is less of a chance of the weapons ending up in the wrong hands.Such a monopoly of force is unacceptable in a communist society. If criminals want guns, they will get them, regardless of whether they are legal for the civilian population or not. The UK has strict gun laws, yet criminals still carry guns, while the greater law-abiding proportion of the population is denied them. Another unacceptable scenario.

[Demogorgon]

The UK has strict gun laws, yet criminals still carry guns,
Yet still has far lower gun crime (and violent crime in general for that matter) than countries where guns are generally available.

As for the question at the beginning, the manufacture of weapons ought to be kept to an absolute minimum. Some weapons will always be required, not least because in certain parts of the world there is some rather nasty wildlife that have to be kept away from inhabited areas, but generally speaking weapons are an appalling waste of resources and manufacture of them should be avoided.

[Bud Struggle]

As for the question at the beginning, the manufacture of weapons ought to be kept to an absolute minimum. Some weapons will always be required, not least because in certain parts of the world there is some rather nasty wildlife that have to be kept away from inhabited areas, but generally speaking weapons are an appalling waste of resources and manufacture of them should be avoided.

But guns should be available to anyone who wants one (or a hundred) anytime they desire to have one. Otherwise you would be telling me how I should live my life and be making your rules paramont to my desires for my life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yet still has far lower gun crime (and violent crime in general for that matter) than countries where guns are generally available.

Yet there are other countries (Switzerland for example) where guns are readily available yet do not have rampant gun crime. Clearly something other than the ready availability of firearms is at work.

[Demogorgon]

Yet there are other countries (Switzerland for example) where guns are readily available yet do not have rampant gun crime. Clearly something other than the ready availability of firearms is at work.
Not the case. Switzerland has a lower crime rate than Britain (it is more prosperous and more egalitarian so that comes as no surprise) but its level of violent crime and gun crime is in fact much higher. The same goes for Finland.

[Demogorgon]

But guns should be available to anyone who wants one (or a hundred) anytime they desire to have one. Otherwise you would be telling me how I should live my life and be making your rules paramont to my desires for my life.
But we have responsibility to one another. If we had both infinite resources and a guarantee that you wouldn't shoot me (not that I imagine you would do anything like that!) then yes, you should be allowed as many guns as you like.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Of course a more egalitarian society would see a fall in the demand for guns anyway, both because those without the resources to demand anything at all would be able to have resources previously given to making guns and other weapons go into more useful things and also because more egalitarian societies are likely to be less violent anyway.

[danyboy27]

Spetnaz21, why don't you go read something and come to your own informed position. All you do on this site is play little schools games and think it is a reasonable position, all I see from you is "he said, she said". Recently you have become one of the worst posters on here.

Here is a hint, go read a book and develop, rather then latching on to half baked ideas.

i created thoses topic about incest/morale/firearm so i could see how you guy are looking at those things, then interrogate myself how i see things and maybe change my positions on certain things.

i often use real life exemple beccause i found them revelant, and yes i could read more book, but so far i like learning stuff by merging idea in my head, listening other talking, debating about stuff.
Of course, i should have been respectful toward him, and i am deeply sorry for my poor number of sources i gave you. i have been a dick recently, and i am deeply sorry.

still, i think talking is a hell lot better than reading book, not that i hate book but political one always trying to sell me a concept, and i hate that.

i am a illetrate, uneducated person, i am deeply sorry about that too, i should not have posted all those things, i am deeply sorry, i have to go back to work. seeya.

[Bud Struggle]

Personally, I think Spet has become one of the best and most thoughtful posters on RevLeft. He's been asking really penetrating and thoughtful questions that get to the heart of what is good and what is best for all of us.

It would behoove us all to think about the kind of thing Spet is asking. He's a good guy and I hope he keeps up the honest questioning he's doing here.

[Bud Struggle]

But we have responsibility to one another. If we had both infinite resources and a guarantee that you wouldn't shoot me (not that I imagine you would do anything like that!) then yes, you should be allowed as many guns as you like.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Of course a more egalitarian society would see a fall in the demand for guns anyway, both because those without the resources to demand anything at all would be able to have resources previously given to making guns and other weapons go into more useful things and also because more egalitarian societies are likely to be less violent anyway.

All this bring about the VERY interesting question of how "authoritarian" is (or will be) Communism. Will it be kind of a "free for all" or will it be a nanny state? (Or nanny Soviet?)

[Demogorgon]

All this bring about the VERY interesting question of how "authoritarian" is (or will be) Communism. Will it be kind of a "free for all" or will it be a nanny state? (Or nanny Soviet?)

You have to have a balance I think. Generally I tend to oppose restrictions on people, but you can't have a complete free for all. There has to be certain standards of behaviour that people are expected to maintain. I would tend very much to the socially libertarian side of the equation, but simply saying anybody can do what they like regardless of harm caused to other people is ridiculous.

[Comrade B]

No no no no NO! Why the should the majority be denied weapons because of a criminal minority? Why should responsible firearms owners take the flak for criminals?
Find a failsafe way to distinguish.
If we used bombs in football, I would restrict football. If paintballs could be loaded with bullets in an effective method, I would restrict paintball guns. It is safety or one of many forms of recreation. There are thousands of ways to have fun, and those killed by gun violence only had one shot at life.


Anecdotes =/= data.
Didn't say it was data, just said where I got my views


If criminals want guns, they will get them
You can make it harder for them to get them.
This logic is ridiculous, we might as well make everything legal (if people really want to rape children, they will do it in secret, so we might as well make it legal...)


yet criminals still carry guns
Which they buy from people who bought guns through the strict rules


Such a monopoly of force is unacceptable in a communist society
No government will ever make itself easy to overthrow, and for good reason. We establish a government because we think it is best kind of government. If, at some time, there is a capitalist majority, to hell with them. Let them learn to love communism, else they will undo everything we have worked for.


But guns should be available to anyone who wants one (or a hundred) anytime they desire to have one. Otherwise you would be telling me how I should live my life and be making your rules paramont to my desires for my life.
And I think we should be telling you how to live your life to an extent, because otherwise you may be getting in the way (say with a bullet) of others enjoying their lives


deeply sorry.
Accepted, my apologies for insulting you in return.

[danyboy27]

i think we should all have the right to have weapon, and that at the same time we should have a regular army with gun.

i strongly support any kind of nationalisation of the weapon industry.

not that i think people will go nut, but mainly beccause i strongly believe that a regular army or a conscript army and a nationalized defense industry is the only efficient way to be able to defend his homeland efficiently against foreign forces.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Find a failsafe way to distinguish.

Specious reasoning. There is no failsafe method for preventing kitchen knives from being used in crimes, therefore we must ban kitchen knives.


You can make it harder for them to get them.
This logic is ridiculous, we might as well make everything legal (if people really want to rape children, they will do it in secret, so we might as well make it legal...)That "logic" assumes there is something wrong with owning firearms in the first place. There isn't.


Which they buy from people who bought guns through the strict rulesI think you'll find that the majority of firearms used in crimes are acquired illegally or involve weapons already in circulation (1) (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iLlwNokIFVMC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=the+majority+of+firearms+used+in+crimes+are+acq uired+illegally&source=web&ots=TiM4tp-Ltw&sig=Dv5zOFzbgM_p_cGsv36kcfS8Upc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA133,M1)


No government will ever make itself easy to overthrow, and for good reason. We establish a government because we think it is best kind of government. If, at some time, there is a capitalist majority, to hell with them. Let them learn to love communism, else they will undo everything we have worked for.The rantings of a wannabe despot. Communist society can only be established as the act of a politically conscious majority, and the availability of firearms to that majority is an essential component in establishing and maintaining such a society.

[Ele'ill]

Specious reasoning. There is no failsafe method for preventing kitchen knives from being used in crimes, therefore we must ban kitchen knives.

Kitchen knives weren't invented to kill and serve other purposes. They also cannot draw a bead on a target at 300 yards and drop it.


That "logic" assumes there is something wrong with owning firearms in the first place. There isn't.

I don't think there is anything wrong with me owning a firearm and neither do the psychopaths or dissidents.




The rantings of a wannabe despot. Communist society can only be established as the act of a politically conscious majority, and the availability of firearms to that majority is an essential component in establishing and maintaining such a society.

Essentially you're ok with genocide. If weapons were readily available to everyone then the minority (of several million people) would also have firearms. There might be a cold war style stand off with everyone in possession of rifles or what have you or many may rise up against the communist majority and they would have to be 'put down'. What a headache THAT would be.

[Comrade B]

Specious reasoning. There is no failsafe method for preventing kitchen knives from being used in crimes, therefore we must ban kitchen knives.
Kill 7 people in a few seconds with a kitchen knife.
Kill a cop with a kitchen knife
Kill someone in general with one stab.


That "logic" assumes there is something wrong with owning firearms in the first place. There isn't.
There is. They kill people.


I think you'll find that the majority of firearms used in crimes are acquired illegally or involve weapons already in circulation (1) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iLlwNokIFVMC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=the+majority+of+firearms+used+in+crimes+are+acq uired+illegally&source=web&ots=TiM4tp-Ltw&sig=Dv5zOFzbgM_p_cGsv36kcfS8Upc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA133,M1)
But the people they get the guns from bought the guns legally. I can only see your statement helping me anyway, the majority of firearms used in crimes are acquired illegally or involve weapons already in circulation. Thus we must tighten restrictions on them.


The rantings of a wannabe despot.
refrain from the silly insulting


Communist society can only be established as the act of a politically conscious majority
There may very well be a time, if we keep people educated and do not embrace nationalism and blinding yourself, that the majority shifts. At this time, the country may be more politically right. In my envisioned communist society, there would be democracy. The people would elect their leader, out of a selection of different communists. This is as much of a democracy as there has ever been. In western democracies you have the choice of which capitalist you want leading you, in socialist democracies you should have the choice of which communist you want leading you.

[Liberte ou la Mort]

The similarities between Communism and Fascism have always been that of state control and a move away from any kind of consensus. The idea of imposing minority rule on the majority is pure Fascism.

I think some of the posts here are only so much hot air. Have you ever killed someone?

Do you think you could kill someone for your idea of freedom?

Guns are the bane of humanity. It is only ever poor people that get hurt by modern weapons. Can you imagine the bloodshed that a fully armed revolution would incur?

I have always found that it's people who have never experienced the joys of modern combat to be the foremost advocates of it.

I just seem to find that these threads contain so much hypothetical bullshit.

[freakazoid]

Also, it is much easier to kill large numbers of people with a gun than it is with a knife. Imagine if the Washington DC snipers a few years back didn't have a gun; they wouldn't have killed near as many peopleDid you hear about the guy in Japan who killed a bunch of people with a knife?


Kitchen knives weren't invented to kill and serve other purposes. They also cannot draw a bead on a target at 300 yards and drop it.A knife is a knife, doesn't matter if it was made specifically for kitchen work or for skinning a fish. And what does it matter what it was invented for?


There is. They kill people.Should we also ban cars to? Since guns kill people some say that we should ban them. Yet cars kill and injure millions of people. Here are some statistics from the US Department of Transportation.
According to a preliminary report from the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 43,200 died on the nation’s highways in 2005, up from 42,636 in 2004. Injuries dropped from 2.79 million in 2004 to 2.68 million in 2005, a decline of 4.1 percent. Fifty-five percent of passenger vehicle occupants who died in 2005 were unbelted

43,200 died! 2.68 million injured!!! How many people were killed and injured by firearms? Lets take a look, according to the CDC the number of homicide related deaths by guns;
2004 - 11,624
2003 - 11,920
2002 - 11,829
2001 - 11,348
2000 - 10,801
1999 - 10,828

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

1999 Statistics (Per 1,000 residents):

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

And to take a quote from,http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=409
"The issue of continued high crime in the aforementioned areas is especially disconcerting when one compares the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is at a high rate and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., just across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent and gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is many multiples higher. Some try to turn this argument around in an attempt to blame the crime problems in Washington, D.C. on weak gun laws in Virginia, but the reality is that Virginia with all of its guns and few laws does not have the crime problem that plagues Washington, D.C. and its gun bans. If guns are the problem, then why is it that those areas with the most guns have the lowest crime levels? "

"Based on the crime rates in areas with the most and fewest gun control laws, one could logically argue that gun control schemes contribute to higher crime rates. There is much evidence to support this hypothesis and similar results can be found in international examples. Just recently, the violent crime levels in England have risen during the past year by more than 15%. These results represent a continuation of crime problems in England that have been encountered since their gun bans took affect in the mid 1990s. The home invasion, burglary, robbery, and a wide range of other crime rates in England now exceed that of the U.S. Only murder and rape remain higher in the U.S., with the difference now being relatively minor and the gap is steadily closing. Even staunchly anti-gun journalist Dan Rather of CBS called England “one the most violent urban societies in the Western world.” As many people are aware, England has long been an example cited by gun control supporters as having good gun control laws and a role model for the U.S. "

To quote George Orwell;

It is a commonplace that the history of civilization is largely the history of weapons......that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships, and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand grenades are inherently democratic weapons.
A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon.....gives claws to the weak.


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

[Ele'ill]

Did you hear about the guy in Japan who killed a bunch of people with a knife?

A knife is a knife, doesn't matter if it was made specifically for kitchen work or for skinning a fish. And what does it matter what it was invented for?

A knife, as is a sharp stick, hatchet, hammer etc.. is an affective killing tool at short range and the time it takes to engage multiple targets with one is obviously much slower than that of a firearm.

You could also, in theory, skin a fish with a toothpick but it wouldn't work nearly as well as a tool invented to perform that specific task.


Should we also ban cars to? Since guns kill people some say that we should ban them. Yet cars kill and injure millions of people.

I think we should ban cars for other reasons but I won't get into that. How many of those deaths were accidental and how many of them were premediated or spontaneous murders? Could you kill multiple people from behind cover in a ghillie suit from 300 some yards away?


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

The social or human geography of Virginia suburbs might not be the same as in Washington D.C.

Philadelphia has a murder problem and a gun problem. I live about thirty minutes away and have heard of only one or two gun related murders in my area within the last year or two. Poverty? Culture? I don't know, maybe. I live in a low income area but it doesn't compare to areas in the city.

[Comrade B]

Did you hear about the guy in Japan who killed a bunch of people with a knife?
Want more examples?


The similarities between Communism and Fascism have always been that of state control and a move away from any kind of consensus. The idea of imposing minority rule on the majority is pure Fascism.
If there ever is a point in which there is a slight anti-communist majority, would you really offer throwing the whole thing out? Or doing slight negotiations, as to attempt to please people, but not undo all progress of the past.


A knife is a knife, doesn't matter if it was made specifically for kitchen work or for skinning a fish. And what does it matter what it was invented for?
A knife is a tool for cutting bread, cutting meat, spreading butter, hell, mixing chocolate milk. It can also kill.
A gun can be used for killing a deer, killing a person, killing a bird, killing two people, killing a wolf, killing a third person, killing yourself, killing your 3 year old self by accident... you know, other good things like that. All starting with killing.


Should we also ban cars to? Since guns kill people some say that we should ban them.
We should come up with safer methods of transportation.
If you can get the world to replace their killing bullets with tranquilizer darts, I am totally up for that.
Also, same argument as the knife, the car has purposes other than killing.


2004 - 11,624
2003 - 11,920
2002 - 11,829
2001 - 11,348
2000 - 10,801
1999 - 10,828
These are country statistics

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

I doubt the deaths in accidents for most of these counties and cities exceeds 100 annually.


To quote George Orwell;
Orwell was a clever fellow, but I am not an Orwellist, I am a Marxist.

[freakazoid]

I think we should ban cars for other reasons but I won't get into that.

You a primi?


Want more examples?

What?


A knife is a tool for cutting bread, cutting meat, spreading butter, hell, mixing chocolate milk. It can also kill.

Knives are tools for killing to.


A gun can be used for killing a deer, killing a person, killing a bird, killing two people, killing a wolf, killing a third person, killing yourself, killing your 3 year old self by accident... you know, other good things like that. All starting with killing.

Yeah... so? You do know that there are MANY more things they can do besides killing right? As if killing itself is even bad. I can put holes in paper, shoot cans, explode toilets, shoot tannerite, shoot the side of the hill, enjoy it as a work of art, use it to defend myself without the need to even fire, shoot skeet, etc. etc. All those things are without that evil word killing.


Also, same argument as the knife, the car has purposes other than killing.

So do firearms.


These are country statistics

These are city and county statistics

I doubt the deaths in accidents for most of these counties and cities exceeds 100 annually.

What is your point? 11,624 deaths by firearms, 43,200 deaths from motor vehicles. Hmmm... which one is larger? There are 3.7 times more deaths from motor vehicles than firearms.

And the best argument of all. What FUCKING! right do you have to take away my firearm! :cursing: I'll tell you, NONE! Just because some idiots decide to use them improperly doesn't give any of you authoritarians to take them away from me.

[Jazzratt]

A knife is a tool for cutting bread, cutting meat, spreading butter, hell, mixing chocolate milk. It can also kill.
A gun can be used for killing a deer, killing a person, killing a bird, killing two people, killing a wolf, killing a third person, killing yourself, killing your 3 year old self by accident... you know, other good things like that. All starting with killing.

Killing is automatically wrong now? Murdering an innocent human being, yes, but killing in general?! Killing deer or other animals is wrong?

Also some guns and ammunitions are designed to wound or incapacitate. Injuring a rapist, an intruder or someone threatening your life is wrong?!


Also, same argument as the knife, the car has purposes other than killing.

Why does that matter? Take a bolt gun, for example, it's a device for killing (cows) and murders with them are exceedingly rare compared to, say, axes which have other uses (firewood chopping for the most part. Some are used to kill trees).



Orwell was a clever fellow, but I am not an Orwellist, I am a Marxist.

What has Marx written on gun laws then? Guns were far more ubiquitious amongst the working class in Orwell's time and are becoming moreso. That I live in a country with violent crime on the rise and a genuine fear of the streets at night and am not allowed to fucking defend myself is a complete fucking disgrace.

[Ele'ill]

Killing is automatically wrong now? Murdering an innocent human being, yes, but killing in general?! Killing deer or other animals is wrong?

If you kill the animals to eat them or use their bones or pelts for warmth in a situation where its imperative for survival and not for fashion or mass food production.


Also some guns and ammunitions are designed to wound or incapacitate. Injuring a rapist, an intruder or someone threatening your life is wrong?!

95% of ammunition is used to kill. I wouldn't consider riot control shotgun beanbags to be in the same game let alone the same ballpark.

There are situations where having a loaded weapon and using it against someone is actually a flawless option. I have not seen many of these situations.






Why does that matter? Take a bolt gun, for example, it's a device for killing (cows) and murders with them are exceedingly rare compared to, say, axes which have other uses (firewood chopping for the most part. Some are used to kill trees).

The more lethal the weapon the more it will be used for killing. If we take firearms away there will be more murders involving other weapons. The difference is that each situation will be dramatically less lethal. M60 or Ak47 vs knife or axe.





What has Marx written on gun laws then? Guns were far more ubiquitious amongst the working class in Orwell's time and are becoming moreso. That I live in a country with violent crime on the rise and a genuine fear of the streets at night and am not allowed to fucking defend myself is a complete fucking disgrace.

Culture was a bit different back then. Its amazing what media does to kids as well as adults.

[PostAnarchy]

what are your opinions about the creation of weapon in a communist society?
do you think it should be totally prohibited or we should still manufacture them?

should we only building small arms or not putting any veto on the construction of weapons, and lets anybody built weapon of they want to?
should we stop the building of attack bomber and tanks, limits their production or simply put some heavy restruction on it?

you can use the exemple of both state and community, so at the end, even anarchists can confortably answer to this.

We are not pacifists.

The creation/holding/carrying of weapons will of course be necessary to defend the revolution from its enemies. I think the real question here is under what structure do we want to have to defend that revolution -- centralized-state apparatus or small communities and workers councils?

[Comrade B]

What?Do you honestly think the DC sniper was the only sniper psychopath in US history?
What do you think would have happened with the Columbine shooting if they had knives instead of guns? Much less me thinks.


Killing is automatically wrong now? Murdering an innocent human being, yes, but killing in general?! Killing deer or other animals is wrong?My point was that a gun can only kill. That is its only purpose.


Also some guns and ammunitions are designed to wound or incapacitate. Injuring a rapist, an intruder or someone threatening your life is wrong?!Do people typically get guns that just wound? As I said,

If you can get the world to replace their killing bullets with tranquilizer darts, I am totally up for that.I was not thinking so broadly when I said tranquilizer, I mean something that does not kill the person... then again... I doubt the weapons you mention are as safe as you seem to think...


You do know that there are MANY more things they can do besides killing right? As if killing itself is even bad. I can put holes in paper, shoot cans, explode toilets, shoot tannerite, shoot the side of the hill, enjoy it as a work of art, use it to defend myself without the need to even fire, shoot skeet, etc. etc. All those things are without that evil word killing.Why do people shoot paper? Cans? Blow up toilets? What reason for this? What do they DO.
Spreading butter makes my toast better.
Find a use for the gun near as good as the knife's use of spreading butter that does not involve killing.


And the best argument of all. What FUCKING! right do you have to take away my firearm! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/cursing.gif I'll tell you, NONE! Just because some idiots decide to use them improperly doesn't give any of you authoritarians to take them away from me.Quick question...
If your ideal country were going to war and had a shortage of fire arms and requested that all people with firearms request their return as to be used by the military, would you do so?
Your gun will protect the lives of the people in your country and defend communism.
Sure, not every gun will be needed, but we can't be too cautious

What makes this different from your situation?


Take a bolt gunNo person needs a bolt gun for their home. Why would a country produce bolt guns for individuals?


What has Marx written on gun laws then? Guns were far more ubiquitious amongst the working class in Orwell's time and are becoming moreso. That I live in a country with violent crime on the rise and a genuine fear of the streets at night and am not allowed to fucking defend myself is a complete fucking disgrace.My point was that I don't have to agree with Orwell on everything to be a communist.

[danyboy27]

i agree with noixxion on the rifle issue, there is no real reason to do not lets people possesing weapons for their self defense or for hunting and recreational purposes.

BUT there is something that bug me.

a lot of people here said there is no reason to manufacture heavy weapon like planes and tanks BUT, isnt the whole point of those weapon formerly to avoid human casualities?

i mean, if for some reason, the worker group x have to stop a immense bloodshed not so far awar from here, using some armored vehicules could reduce worker casualities, so why not keeping then widith the frame of a organized or semi-organized army?


ww1 was mainly fought with rifles and small arms, million of casualities, ww2 was fought with small arms and vehicules, millions of casualities.
desert storm 1 and 2 was fought mainly with vehicules, thousand of casualities. russia attack georgia mainly with vehicules, hundred of casualities.

i seriously love the idea of worker milita and all this but, having the support of vehicules and planes really saved life of many peoples in conflicts.

perhaps the production of those kind of weapons should be voted by the people first, and once built maintained by the people, the milita could use it and train with it.

[freakazoid]

95% of ammunition is used to kill.

I would LOVE to see the proof for that. Because I call complete bullshit.


I have not seen many of these situations.

Of course YOU wouldn't. Your anti-gun, and since the media has a habit of also being anti-gun they are not going to go out of there way to print the stories where a firearm was used in self defense. But boy howdy if one is used to murder.


The more lethal the weapon the more it will be used for killing. If we take firearms away there will be more murders involving other weapons. The difference is that each situation will be dramatically less lethal. M60 or Ak47 vs knife or axe.

Interesting. Because I own a Yugo AK47 and I haven't killed anyone. I've been to the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot, twice, and have fired fully-automatic firearms and didn't kill anyone then either. http://current.com/items/87302871/machine_gun_shootout.htm


Culture was a bit different back then. Its amazing what media does to kids as well as adults.

Yeah, it is isn't it...



What do you think would have happened with the Columbine shooting if they had knives instead of guns? Much less me thinks.

I would be willing to bet that they would of actually been able to kill a LOT more people if they only used knives. It is pretty easy to know who the one shooting people is. It wouldn't be so easy to know who the one stabbing someone is, if you even know someone is stabbing people to begin with. Also If the people at the school had been allowed to be armed to begin with they would of been able to defend themselves. Interesting fact, schools are "gun free zones". How come the shooters had them then? Because what they should really be called are Victim disarmament zones.


My point was that a gun can only kill. That is its only purpose.

Did you not read my post! Do you even know what a gun and a bullet is?


Do people typically get guns that just wound? As I said,

Well a gun itself can't really do much. It is the ammo that goes in it. And, yes, you ignorant fool.


Why do people shoot paper? Cans? Blow up toilets? What reason for this? What do they DO.
Spreading butter makes my toast better.
Find a use for the gun near as good as the knife's use of spreading butter that does not involve killing.

BECAUSE I FUCKING FEEL LIKE IT! Do you know what a hobby is? Or do you wish to ban hobbies now to?


If your ideal country were going to war and had a shortage of fire arms and requested that all people with firearms request their return as to be used by the military, would you do so?

In my ideal "country", I'm an anarchist, there wouldn't exist a military. All able bodied people would be a militia and would supply there own gear, and if they couldn't gear would be supplied to them. And why would there be a shortage of firearms? Also you completely avoided what I had said in that statement. Which is that you have absolutely no right to take away my firearm. And that I have every right to own one. And if someone does try to take it away they will soon find out why we have them.


No person needs a bolt gun for their home. Why would a country produce bolt guns for individuals?

Wow... just wow. No person needs much of anything. I don't need my remote controlled plane. I don't need the specific model of car that I own. I don't even need a car. I don't need to have the certain types of cloths that I wear. I don't need the certain kind of food that I eat. I don't need the hat that I wear. I don't need etc. ect.


My point was that I don't have to agree with Orwell on everything to be a communist.

You just managed to respond without actually touching on the point of his post.

[Ele'ill]

I would LOVE to see the proof for that. Because I call complete bullshit.

I didn't mean that literally. I meant a very high percentage of munitions are meant to be lethal and 95 looked good.




Of course YOU wouldn't. Your anti-gun, and since the media has a habit of also being anti-gun they are not going to go out of there way to print the stories where a firearm was used in self defense. But boy howdy if one is used to murder.

I'm not anti gun. I own an AK56s-1. I'm challenging the idea that post revolution, everyone could own a firearm and everything would be kept in relative order. I think it would be absolute chaos.




Interesting. Because I own a Yugo AK47 and I haven't killed anyone. I've been to the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot, twice, and have fired fully-automatic firearms and didn't kill anyone then either.

I am glad that you have not killed anyone. My point was that the more obscure the potentially murderous tool is, the less likely it will be used to murder. People want the more powerful weapons. In the world of knives, a sword reigns supreme. In the world of massive military buildups, nuclear weapons reign supreme. In the world of nuclear weapons, tech-infiltration reigns supreme.




Yeah, it is isn't it...






I would be willing to bet that they would of actually been able to kill a LOT more people if they only used knives. It is pretty easy to know who the one shooting people is. It wouldn't be so easy to know who the one stabbing someone is, if you even know someone is stabbing people to begin with. Also If the people at the school had been allowed to be armed to begin with they would of been able to defend themselves. Interesting fact, schools are "gun free zones". How come the shooters had them then? Because what they should really be called are Victim disarmament zones.

I think you should get into contact with the DoD and explain this knife theory of yours to them. In a mere matter of weeks the m16 will be phased out and replaced with kitchen knives.

So two shooters walk into a school where other people have weapons. They start shooting in a cafeteria from the left. A group of armed students start shooting from the right. The students in the middle get shot to death. The students in the top and bottom areas of this said cafeteria duck or run.

Stand off. Ten-fifteen minutes pass.

Enter SWAT team. SWAT team does not know who to engage with their fully automatic weapons because everybody has weapons and is aiming at eachother.

[danyboy27]

kitchen knife is not a good exemple.

if you ban weapon, nothing actually avoid a studient to lock the door of all the school with chin and burn it and watch the people inside burn.

it wont avoid some sick studient to make a homemade bomb and kill a LOT of their comrades.

it wont avoid some sick studients to put poison on the food.

i think the exemples mentionned above really show that no matter how dangerous guns are, there will be ALWAYS something more dangerous that you cant totally control.

if a studient that is gone nut want to kill and kill a lot, he will find a way out, gettin the gun out wont stop his folly.

[freakazoid]

I didn't mean that literally. I meant a very high percentage of munitions are meant to be lethal and 95 looked good.

You would be WAY off. Shoot, the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot that I linked to probably shoots most of the ammunition, :lol: That vulcan shoots a hella amount of rounds in 1 second.


I'm not anti gun. I own an AK56s-1. I'm challenging the idea that post revolution, everyone could own a firearm and everything would be kept in relative order. I think it would be absolute chaos.

Egad! A fellow AK owner, and one of the nice ones, saying that no one should own guns after the revolution? Does not compute. There would be WAY less of the problems then than there are now.


In the world of knives, a sword reigns supreme.

Should swords be outlawed? Should we outlaw bow and arrows too? Or how rocks and slings ?



Quote:
Originally Posted by freakazoid http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1291314#post1291314)
Yeah, it is isn't it...




Umm.... Did you mean to leave that blank? Serious question.


I think you should get into contact with the DoD and explain this knife theory of yours to them. In a mere matter of weeks the m16 will be phased out and replaced with kitchen knives.

A person who wanted to go on a mass-murder spree would do better to use a knife like I had explained.


So two shooters walk into a school where other people have weapons. They start shooting in a cafeteria from the left. A group of armed students start shooting from the right. The students in the middle get shot to death. The students in the top and bottom areas of this said cafeteria duck or run.

Except that's not how it would actually happen and is nothing but pure Hollywood. Did you know that there have been school shooting where someone defended themselves with a firearm, of course those are never reported in the media or any time someone defends themselves with a firearm because it isn't as sensation as someone who goes on a rampage. Have you heard about Charles Whitman, the University of Texas tower sniper that happened in '66? If it wasn't for the armed civilians he would of killed more people.

Also these mass shootings and such pale in comparison to how many times they don't happen. Why should people have there firearms taken away because of the actions of a few?

[Jazzratt]

If you kill the animals to eat them or use their bones or pelts for warmth in a situation where its imperative for survival and not for fashion or mass food production.

Bollocks. It's fine to shoot animals for food whether or not it is imperative, hell shooting them for fun and challenge is reason enough.


95% of ammunition is used to kill. I wouldn't consider riot control shotgun beanbags to be in the same game let alone the same ballpark. Ammunition designed to injure also include frangible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangible) rounds, the famous rubber bullets as well as the plastic variety. Weaponry for this purpose includes electromagnetic, directed-energy, electroshock and sonic weaponry. All of this makes up 5% of ammunition manufactured?!


There are situations where having a loaded weapon and using it against someone is actually a flawless option. I have not seen many of these situations.

Nothing is flawless.




The more lethal the weapon the more it will be used for killing. If we take firearms away there will be more murders involving other weapons. The difference is that each situation will be dramatically less lethal. M60 or Ak47 vs knife or axe.

Well, not really. Murders done in this country are generally against unarmed civilians, so it takes much longer to stop them (thus raising the body count). Unrestricted access to guns means that if some nutter tries to shoot up a park full of kiddies or whatever they get shot through the fucking face by armed civilians. Most murders are premeditated jobbies anyway, someone decides that a (wo)man should die and kills that (wo)man. They might start killing more, but generally they have a few days between. Psychotic fucksticks are far rarer.


Culture was a bit different back then. Its amazing what media does to kids as well as adults.

Welcome to right wing alarmism. Enjoy your stay.

[Comrade B]

BECAUSE I FUCKING FEEL LIKE IT! Do you know what a hobby is? Or do you wish to ban hobbies now to?
If there is a hobby to plant C4 in the desert and detonate it for excitement, should C4 be available in every store?


I would be willing to bet that they would of actually been able to kill a LOT more people if they only used knives.
I have had a knife pulled on me before, as I have done to a few before as well. It takes a lot to actually use it, pure fucking blind rage. You can be in pure blind rage and still not do it also, or you can try, and people stop you.
I have to tell you also, it's much easier to disarm a knife than a gun.


It is pretty easy to know who the one shooting people is
People bleed.... a lot. And blood is messy. And gets on everything, even where you don't expect it.


Well a gun itself can't really do much. It is the ammo that goes in it. And, yes, you ignorant fool.
Yay insulting with out reason.
Anyway, who was the last person you know that kept a gun loaded with ammunition made to injure?


Did you not read my post! Do you even know what a gun and a bullet is?
There is no utility to a gun other than to kill.
If I had said reasons that a knife are better than a gun is because you can hit wood with a knife, stab paper with a knife, and throw knives at targets I don't think you would have taken that as an answer.


In my ideal "country", I'm an anarchist, there wouldn't exist a military. All able bodied people would be a militia and would supply there own gear, and if they couldn't gear would be supplied to them.
What happens when your community is not all anarchist then? What happens if Billy with the RPG and his own personal army wants you to be his slave.


And why would there be a shortage of firearms? Also you completely avoided what I had said in that statement.
You completely failed to see my point, it was not meant in a literal sense.
People will die if everyone can get a gun. People will die because some people think that them owning a weapon, for entertainment or whatever the hell you say, is more important than preventing some deaths.


Which is that you have absolutely no right to take away my firearm. And that I have every right to own one.
Ah yes, the 2nd amendment right. I am sure we need to carry on the rights of the capitalist system into our new era! What would the world be with out the 1/3 person law?!
I don't think people have a 'Right' to own a gun. Convince me.


And if someone does try to take it away they will soon find out why we have them.
To kill people?


Wow... just wow. No person needs much of anything. I don't need my remote controlled plane. I don't need the specific model of car that I own. I don't even need a car. I don't need to have the certain types of cloths that I wear. I don't need the certain kind of food that I eat. I don't need the hat that I wear. I don't need etc. ect.
Excuse me, why the fuck do you need a gun for killing cows in your house? Or do you operate a slaughterhouse in your basement?


You just managed to respond without actually touching on the point of his post.
I don't have to repeat every other argument. I agree with Mari3l here.


Should swords be outlawed? Should we outlaw bow and arrows too? Or how rocks and slings ?
The production should be stopped, but they do not pose as great of a danger. A police officer can shoot a guy with a sword before he can kill a massive number of people, a bow takes a bit of time to reload and aim, and it is quite noticable when someone is setting up a bow in a public place. Slings are practically impossible to aim, and also, it takes more than one rock hitting you in the head to kill you (maybe it is enough to hurt you pretty badly, or knock you out, but you aren't killing a man instantly with a sling)


Have you heard about Charles Whitman, the University of Texas tower sniper that happened in '66? If it wasn't for the armed civilians he would of killed more people.
A University open campus is pretty different from a library.

Also, imagine a bunch of kids shooting at each other with little knowledge of how to shoot in a crowded room.


Bollocks. It's fine to shoot animals for food whether or not it is imperative, hell shooting them for fun and challenge is reason enough.
ah, sadism


they get shot through the fucking face by armed civilians
And why not a police officer?

[danyboy27]

dont forget the fact that both stalinist and nazi favorized the ban of weapon on civilian in order to make their control over population flawless.

[Ele'ill]

You would be WAY off. Shoot, the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot that I linked to probably shoots most of the ammunition, :lol: That vulcan shoots a hella amount of rounds in 1 second.

Those rounds that you're target shooting with are designed to be lethal to a living organism of considerable size.




Should swords be outlawed? Should we outlaw bow and arrows too? Or how rocks and slings ?

You seem fairly intelligent so I don't buy this facade of stupid.





Umm.... Did you mean to leave that blank? Serious question.




A person who wanted to go on a mass-murder spree would do better to use a knife like I had explained.

So assuming this murderer is in a building full of people or outside with a group of people, he or she would kill more people with a knife than with a firearm? :laugh:




Except that's not how it would actually happen and is nothing but pure Hollywood. Did you know that there have been school shooting where someone defended themselves with a firearm, of course those are never reported in the media or any time someone defends themselves with a firearm because it isn't as sensation as someone who goes on a rampage. Have you heard about Charles Whitman, the University of Texas tower sniper that happened in '66? If it wasn't for the armed civilians he would of killed more people.

Yeah, thank god he had a rifle. If he had a knife they all would have been in trouble.


Also these mass shootings and such pale in comparison to how many times they don't happen. Why should people have there firearms taken away because of the actions of a few?

I'm not advocating having weapons ripped away from everyone. I just think the post revolutionary violence would be immense and uncontrollable.

As for the SWAT team situation the SWAT might be the best guys to go into that mess. I still think it would be a nightmare. But what if its regular cops with shotguns? Poorly trained and scared.



Bollocks. It's fine to shoot animals for food whether or not it is imperative, hell shooting them for fun and challenge is reason enough.

What about chasing and shooting at wolves from helicopters? Hunting a species to extinction?


Ammunition designed to injure also include frangible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangible) rounds, the famous rubber bullets as well as the plastic variety. Weaponry for this purpose includes electromagnetic, directed-energy, electroshock and sonic weaponry. All of this makes up 5% of ammunition manufactured?!

Maybe even less than 5% considering the different types of lethal munition available for every type of firearm that is in current production.




Nothing is flawless.

If there were such a situation...etc






Well, not really. Murders done in this country are generally against unarmed civilians, so it takes much longer to stop them (thus raising the body count). Unrestricted access to guns means that if some nutter tries to shoot up a park full of kiddies or whatever they get shot through the fucking face by armed civilians. Most murders are premeditated jobbies anyway, someone decides that a (wo)man should die and kills that (wo)man. They might start killing more, but generally they have a few days between. Psychotic fucksticks are far rarer.

The park scenario wouldn't work out as well as you think. If people don't know eachother and someone started shooting kids and multiple people started drawing their weapons and firing it would raise the chance of 'friendly fire' dramatically. Not everyone would be trained properly in how to use their weapons.




Welcome to right wing alarmism. Enjoy your stay.

You don't think the media has an influence on children and adults? This is not a strictly right wing idea by any stretch. Some of the more important leftist writers and professors of this time period have documented the affects. Corporations spend millions every year on marketing to hook that target demographic.

[freakazoid]

If there is a hobby to plant C4 in the desert and detonate it for excitement, should C4 be available in every store?[/quote[

Umm... Yeah. Oh, and some people do create and explode explozives as a hobby...

[quote]I have had a knife pulled on me before, as I have done to a few before as well. It takes a lot to actually use it, pure fucking blind rage. You can be in pure blind rage and still not do it also, or you can try, and people stop you.
I have to tell you also, it's much easier to disarm a knife than a gun.[quote]

Not really? Would of been nice if you were able to defend yourself. And did you say that you have pulled a knife on people?

[quote]People bleed.... a lot. And blood is messy. And gets on everything, even where you don't expect it.

Ok...?


Yay insulting with out reason.

Well. Calling you a fool was uncalled for, so I appologize for that :(. But you are ignorant on firearms, so there was a reason for that.


Anyway, who was the last person you know that kept a gun loaded with ammunition made to injure?

Made to injure? Are you talking about less lethal ammunition like a bean bag round for a shotgun?


There is no utility to a gun other than to kill.

NO! I have already pointed this out. You see it is because of responses like that why I had called you an ignorant fool. Do you know what the original purpose of the yoyo was? It was a tool of war. Now it is a toy. Perhaps while you are banning firearms, cars, and knives, you should ban those too.


If I had said reasons that a knife are better than a gun is because you can hit wood with a knife, stab paper with a knife, and throw knives at targets I don't think you would have taken that as an answer.

BETTER that a gun? That wouldn't make it better.


What happens when your community is not all anarchist then?

Are you talking post or pre revolution?


What happens if Billy with the RPG and his own personal army wants you to be his slave.

Take out my AK? I would rather die on my feet than to live my life on my knees.


People will die if everyone can get a gun.

So?


People will die because some people think that them owning a weapon, for entertainment or whatever the hell you say, is more important than preventing some deaths

Well shoot, I guess we should also ban vehicles then too. While you are at it lets go and put bubble rap around everything. "Those who would sacrifice temporary security for essintial liberty are deservant of niether." I very strongly believe in that.


Ah yes, the 2nd amendment right. I am sure we need to carry on the rights of the capitalist system into our new era!

Your right. We don't need those silly things like a right to freedom of speech, not having our stuff stolen from police, etc. What was I thinking.


I don't think people have a 'Right' to own a gun. Convince me.

I have a right to defend my bodily autonomy.


To kill people?

To protect ourselves from wannabe tyrants. Are you really that daft?


Excuse me, why the fuck do you need a gun for killing cows in your house? Or do you operate a slaughterhouse in your basement?

Because I can?


A police officer can shoot a guy with a sword before he can kill a massive number of people,

So cops still get firearms still. Great. So I am just supposed to rely on a pig to protect me? 1. They do not have to protect you as an individual, just the community as a whole. And 2. Most of the time they get to you house just in time to draw the chalk line around your body.


a bow takes a bit of time to reload and aim,

So? My cap and ball does to.


and it is quite noticable when someone is setting up a bow in a public place.

lol, why would he sit out in the oppenning for all to see? And even if he did, no one else has a firearm to stop him, so he can kill with ease.


Slings are practically impossible to aim,

Not that impossible.


A University open campus is pretty different from a library.

Not that different, and so what?


Also, imagine a bunch of kids shooting at each other with little knowledge of how to shoot in a crowded room.

Fighting temptation to call you an idiot... so hard... People who take the time to carry typically also take the time to PRACTICE with there firearm. They are not bumbling idiots.


And why not a police officer?

1. Fuck the police. And 2. Again, they get there in time to draw a chalk line around you.


Those rounds that you're target shooting with are designed to be lethal to a living organism of considerable size.

And look how many people DIDN'T die. What is your point? Is it really that hard to comprehend that just because something is lethal desn't mean that it has to be used that way?


You seem fairly intelligent so I don't buy this facade of stupid.

If we are to follow your logic that since guns are somtimes used to murder that we should ban them, then that would also mean that we should ban those other things as well, since they to are used to murder.


Originally Posted by freakazoid View Post
Umm.... Did you mean to leave that blank? Serious question.



lol, ok? Did you mean to leave that one blank too?


So assuming this murderer is in a building full of people or outside with a group of people, he or she would kill more people with a knife than with a firearm?

Yeah? And I have explained how too. Funny how you don't actually attack the reasons given...


Yeah, thank god he had a rifle. If he had a knife they all would have been in trouble.

That guy in Japan was able to kill 7 people with a knife...


I just think the post revolutionary violence would be immense and uncontrollable.

?? Because so many people are going to not have the basic things to need to survive after the revolution right??


What about chasing and shooting at wolves from helicopters?

Because that is SO easy to do right?


of ammunition manufactured?!
Maybe even less than 5% considering the different types of lethal munition available for every type of firearm that is in current production.

When you said that 95% of ammunition is used to kill did you mean that that many are designed to be lethal or did you mean that that many fired out of a firearm is being fired with the intent to kill someone?


The park scenario wouldn't work out as well as you think. If people don't know eachother and someone started shooting kids and multiple people started drawing their weapons and firing it would raise the chance of 'friendly fire' dramatically. Not everyone would be trained properly in how to use their weapons.

Really? Funny how the antis always say things like that if people where allowed to conceale carry it will be like the old west and there will be fountains of blood in the streets and that NEVER happens. And infact crime goes down. How do you people come up with these rediculous situations?


You don't think the media has an influence on children and adults?

And the media says, guns are eeeeeviiiilll.

[Jazzratt]

ah, sadism

This is an entirely different argument. If you're an animal rights loonball that's great but you can keep your moral judgements to yourself.


And why not a police officer?

Oh dear christ no. I live in a country with a disarmed civilian population where we give the pigs weaponry and it's a fucking disaster because coppers tend to be dickheads with a "little man" syndrome. The upshot of this is that we have trigger happy cops running around killing the defenceless because of their monoply on firepower.

Even if the local bobbies aren't a bunch of trigger happy psychopaths there's still the problem that in order for them to turn up somewhere they first need to be contacted, then they need to stop ramming pork pies into their faces [cannibalism perhaps?], then they need to get to where the shooting is happening. In that time a killer could rack up quite a bodycount.

[Ele'ill]

And look how many people DIDN'T die. What is your point? Is it really that hard to comprehend that just because something is lethal desn't mean that it has to be used that way?

They were designed to be ridiculously lethal and it is their main purpose. I'm sure creative people could come up with a lot of fun things to do with objects that are ridiculously lethal or with objects that are illegal. This doesn't justify their existence.




If we are to follow your logic that since guns are somtimes used to murder that we should ban them, then that would also mean that we should ban those other things as well, since they to are used to murder.

Saying that guns are sometimes used to murder presents the illusion that guns were designed for something else and that murders are just a minor draw back to their main purpose.

There are restrictions regarding knives, swords, axes etc. You either can't buy them in certain areas and you certainly cannot walk down the street weilding an axe or sword without being questioned.




lol, ok? Did you mean to leave that one blank too?




Yeah? And I have explained how too. Funny how you don't actually attack the reasons given...

Your original point was that someone could kill more people with a knife than with a firearm.

I don't think you believe yourself and I certainly don't.




That guy in Japan was able to kill 7 people with a knife...

Yeah, knives are sharp. They are just no where near the lethal capabilities that a firearm has.




?? Because so many people are going to not have the basic things to need to survive after the revolution right??

No, because only a handful of people per township, community or whatever are going to have the basic things needed to survive.




Because that is SO easy to do right?

Apparently its fairly popular.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/31/22337/7183




When you said that 95% of ammunition is used to kill did you mean that that many are designed to be lethal or did you mean that that many fired out of a firearm is being fired with the intent to kill someone?

I meant that most of the ammunition that is manufactured has been designed by companies to be lethal. I know there are some exceptions and I took that into account.




Really? Funny how the antis always say things like that if people where allowed to conceale carry it will be like the old west and there will be fountains of blood in the streets and that NEVER happens. And infact crime goes down. How do you people come up with these rediculous situations?

First of all i'm not an anti. I never said anything about fountains of blood.

If you believe for a second that if our highly trained and experienced military can accidently mow eachother and friendlies down on a fairly regular basis, that a bunch of untrained civilians in a park reacting to sudden gunfire are going to act as one unit to identify and neutralize the threat than you are simply insane.




And the media says, guns are eeeeeviiiilll.

I see you're a victim of it as well. Media doesn't mean exclusively news. All the movies, commercials and tv shows have a huge affect on children (and adults). Many of these commercials, movies and tv shows are extremely violent or extremely flashy or both.

[Vendetta]

If there is a hobby to plant C4 in the desert and detonate it for excitement, should C4 be available in every store?

'scalled fireworks.:thumbup1:

[Ele'ill]

'scalled fireworks.:thumbup1:


Care to take a look at the restrictions on buying or making them?

[freakazoid]

They were designed to be ridiculously lethal and it is their main purpose. I'm sure creative people could come up with a lot of fun things to do with objects that are ridiculously lethal or with objects that are illegal. This doesn't justify their existence.

Well actually that is incorrect. Not all firearms are designed to be lethal. And even then, so what? Why ban something when only a few are causing a problem?


Saying that guns are sometimes used to murder presents the illusion that guns were designed for something else and that murders are just a minor draw back to their main purpose.

Seeing as how murder is a type of killing, they can't be designed for murder.



There are restrictions regarding knives, swords, axes etc. You either can't buy them in certain areas and you certainly cannot walk down the street weilding an axe or sword without being questioned.

Which is completely stupid.


Originally Posted by freakazoid View Post
lol, ok? Did you mean to leave that one blank too?



I can't help but get the feeling that you are doing this on purpose... :P


Your original point was that someone could kill more people with a knife than with a firearm.

I don't think you believe yourself and I certainly don't.

And I had explained my reasoning why. Oh and I found an article talking about the stabbings in Japan, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2008/06/200861503217311745.html Apparently he killed 7 people, and wounded 11 others. That means that he managed to stab 18 people!. Have you heard about the North Hollywood shootout? The two would be bank robbers had fully-automatic weapons and had fired thousands of rounds and they didn't kill a single person, shot a few people but killed no one.


No, because only a handful of people per township, community or whatever are going to have the basic things needed to survive.

Doesn't sound like a very successful revolution to me.


Apparently its fairly popular.

Yeah, I know. It is hard enough to hit something that is standing still and you are standing still. It is extremely hard to shoot something running while you are bobbing up and down.


I meant that most of the ammunition that is manufactured has been designed by companies to be lethal. I know there are some exceptions and I took that into account.

Oh, well then I completely missunderstood what you where saying. So to attack what you really meant, so?


First of all i'm not an anti

You believe in restrictions, that makes you an anti. Plus I was refering to antis in general.


I never said anything about fountains of blood.

But it is what you believe.


If you believe for a second that if our highly trained and experienced military can accidently mow eachother and friendlies down on a fairly regular basis, that a bunch of untrained civilians in a park reacting to sudden gunfire are going to act as one unit to identify and neutralize the threat than you are simply insane.

If you believe that this is a realistic scenerio then you are highly ignorant on the subject. This kind of stuff just doesn't happen.


I see you're a victim of it as well. Media doesn't mean exclusively news. All the movies, commercials and tv shows have a huge affect on children (and adults). Many of these commercials, movies and tv shows are extremely violent or extremely flashy or both.

Except most do not say that guns are good. In fact most of the actors in these actions movies are highly anti-gun.


You give the antis an inch and they will take a mile. Do you even think that it will stop with firearms? In Britain they are, or have don't remember as it has been a while since I have read about it, banning airsoft and show swords.

[Ele'ill]

Well actually that is incorrect. Not all firearms are designed to be lethal. And even then, so what? Why ban something when only a few are causing a problem?

Most firearms are designed to be lethal.




Seeing as how murder is a type of killing, they can't be designed for murder.

Murder is the intentional killing of a human being (or I suppose any living creature). Most firearms are designed to kill.




I can't help but get the feeling that you are doing this on purpose... :P

Doing what?




And I had explained my reasoning why. Oh and I found an article talking about the stabbings in Japan, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2008/06/200861503217311745.html Apparently he killed 7 people, and wounded 11 others. That means that he managed to stab 18 people!. Have you heard about the North Hollywood shootout? The two would be bank robbers had fully-automatic weapons and had fired thousands of rounds and they didn't kill a single person, shot a few people but killed no one.

The bank robbers were not intent on killing as many people as possible from the get-go. They were trying to get the money and get out. Once confronted, they opened fire. Regardless, having a shoot out against police who are behind cover is not an accurate scenario to compare someone trying to inflict harm on innocent people.




Doesn't sound like a very successful revolution to me.

Exactly.




Yeah, I know. It is hard enough to hit something that is standing still and you are standing still. It is extremely hard to shoot something running while you are bobbing up and down.

Right. Which is why they sometimes chase them to exhaustion, then shoot them.



You believe in restrictions, that makes you an anti. Plus I was refering to antis in general.

Restricting something doesn't mean you stand against it outright.




But it is what you believe.

Since you want to be so literal, allow me to clarify: I believe that in a shoot out, the people wounded or killed turn into cement fountains that shoot blood into the air.




If you believe that this is a realistic scenerio then you are highly ignorant on the subject. This kind of stuff just doesn't happen.

Because not everybody is permitted to carry a firearm.

In regards to friendly fire incidents, they absolutely do occur.




Except most do not say that guns are good. In fact most of the actors in these actions movies are highly anti-gun.

The actors may or may not be anti gun. The characters they portray usually use guns to kill people, of course only the bad men die and there is never any collateral damage.



You give the antis an inch and they will take a mile. Do you even think that it will stop with firearms? In Britain they are, or have don't remember as it has been a while since I have read about it, banning airsoft and show swords.

I'm not for or against banning weapons. I just want to present an alternative argument and see if it can be defended or attacked.

[freakazoid]

Most firearms are designed to be lethal.

I doubt that most means I by large majority. There are a LOT that are not designed to be "lethal".


Murder is the intentional killing of a human being (or I suppose any living creature). Most firearms are designed to kill.

Murder is the unwarranted killing of someone.


Doing what?

You have been leaving those blank. Both times you quoted me but didn't respond. :confused:


Once confronted, they opened fire. Regardless, having a shoot out against police who are behind cover is not an accurate scenario to compare someone trying to inflict harm on innocent people.

Once confronted they where trying to inflict as much harm as possible.


Exactly.

So you plan on having an unsuccessful revolution? :confused:


Restricting something doesn't mean you stand against it outright.

Correct. But in this situation it does.


Since you want to be so literal, allow me to clarify: I believe that in a shoot out, the people wounded or killed turn into cement fountains that shoot blood into the air.

I think you know what I mean.



In regards to friendly fire incidents, they absolutely do occur.

But not in the way you have described it, and not even close to frequently enough to warrant restrictions.


I'm not for or against banning weapons. I just want to present an alternative argument and see if it can be defended or attacked.

Wait wait wait. So let me get this straight. You are only playing devils advocate?

[Vendetta]

Care to take a look at the restrictions on buying or making them?

There's not really any restrictions against buying fireworks where I live.

[Ele'ill]

I doubt that most means I by large majority. There are a LOT that are not designed to be "lethal".

Not in comparison to how many firearms are designed to be lethal.




Murder is the unwarranted killing of someone.

Main Entry: 1mur·der Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\ Function: noun Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal Date: before 12th century 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought2 a: something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b: something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>





You have been leaving those blank. Both times you quoted me but didn't respond. :confused:

What?




Once confronted they where trying to inflict as much harm as possible.

And by then, most of the civilians in the area had run for cover and the police were behind squad cars and such.




So you plan on having an unsuccessful revolution? :confused:

Not unsuccessful, just realistic.




Correct. But in this situation it does.

No it doesn't. Restricting firearm ownership and taking all the firearms away would be two entirely different things.



But not in the way you have described it, and not even close to frequently enough to warrant restrictions.

It happens enough to be a problem. There are situations of confusion involving friendly fire frequently. Do many of these situations end with no casualties? Sure! But the people involved are highly trained. It would be much different when dealing with untrained civilians.




Wait wait wait. So let me get this straight. You are only playing devils advocate?

Does it matter?


There's not really any restrictions against buying fireworks where I live.

It varies by state although this isn't my main point. The fireworks you can buy are not equivalent to being able to own c4.

[danyboy27]

so much people here are paranoid about weapon, i just dont get it.

[freakazoid]

Not in comparison to how many firearms are designed to be lethal.

So?


: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Yeah, see. It is not simply killing someone.


What?

Yeah, both time you simply left the response blank. ?? It is right there.


And by then, most of the civilians in the area had run for cover and the police were behind squad cars and such.

A squad car isn't going to do much to stop a 7.62x39 and a .308 round.


Not unsuccessful, just realistic.

So by "realistic" you mean worse than what it is today?


No it doesn't. Restricting firearm ownership and taking all the firearms away would be two entirely different things.

Are you familier with the term "slippery slope"? One will eventually lead to the other.


It happens enough to be a problem.

If that is the case then we should also ban vehicles. Remember how many more deaths and injuries are caused by vehicles than are caused by firearms?


Does it matter?

Well yeah, sort of.



It varies by state although this isn't my main point. The fireworks you can buy are not equivalent to being able to own c4.

You can combine fireworks to create a large explosion. And it isn't that hard to make c4 and other high and low explosives. TATP is extremely easy to make...

[Ele'ill]

So?

Thank you for finally agreeing.




Yeah, see. It is not simply killing someone.

I was right. Murder is premeditated killing.




A squad car isn't going to do much to stop a 7.62x39 and a .308 round.

Naturally armor or metal piercing rounds? Great! So lets let everybody carry!

On a more serious note, the police were hunkered down which is much different then gunmen, with the intent to kill, walking into a cafeteria or a busy park.





So by "realistic" you mean worse than what it is today?

By realistic I meant realistic.




Are you familier with the term "slippery slope"?

No, I'm a complete idiot.



One will eventually lead to the other.

Explain how this would naturally take place.




If that is the case then we should also ban vehicles. Remember how many more deaths and injuries are caused by vehicles than are caused by firearms?

You're running in circles. The difference between vehicle and firearm deaths is the murder aspect of firearms deaths.




Well yeah, sort of.

How?




You can combine fireworks to create a large explosion. And it isn't that hard to make c4 and other high and low explosives. TATP is extremely easy to make...

It isn't hard to make dangerous things, its hard to control them while you're making them. The BATF, from what I understand, monitors all things explosive. Even fireworks. The key difference is that we can't restrict or ban house hold ingredients (aside from solidox etc), we can, however, restrict or ban items being manufactured and produced in whole from factories.

[danyboy27]

you can ban gun, there will always have some on the black market in an halley.
better legalize them so we can control them.

[freakazoid]

Thank you for finally agreeing.

Yeah, I would agree that more are not designed to be less-lethal, but I still ask, So?


I was right. Murder is premeditated killing.

Well no. You said that murder and killing are the same thing. Also murder isn't premeditated killing. It can be premeditated but it doesn't even have to be.


Naturally armor or metal piercing rounds? Great! So lets let everybody carry!

All ammunition is "armor piercing" They all just vary on how much. Also a hunting rifle round is far more powerful than an AK round. So any ban on "armor piercing" rounds will automatically ban hunting rifles.


By realistic I meant realistic.

That is crap. That wouldn't be a successful revolution at all.


No, I'm a complete idiot.

Hey, not everyone is familiar with the term.


Explain how this would naturally take place.

/me points to places like Britain and Ireland and DC and California, etc.


You're running in circles. The difference between vehicle and firearm deaths is the murder aspect of firearms deaths.

That only help me. If so many deaths are caused by accidents then we really should ban vehicles.


How?

Well if you really are anti-gun then I can use facts to persuade to otherwise. But if you are simply playing Devils Advocate then that means that no matter what I say you will purposely look past facts just to have an argument, and this is a complete waste of my time.


It isn't hard to make dangerous things, its hard to control them while you're making them.

Hasn't been to hard for me...

[Jazzratt]

All ammunition is "armor piercing" They all just vary on how much. Also a hunting rifle round is far more powerful than an AK round. So any ban on "armor piercing" rounds will automatically ban hunting rifles.

I always understood "amour piercing" to refer to ammunition with increased capacity to pierce armour. I'm not really an expert on these things but I understood that a pointed round with a full metal jacket was far more capable of piercing armour than, say, a dum dum (which in turn is better at doing so than the frangible rounds I mentioned earlier in the thread). Even if this isn't the technical definition, I'm fairly sure Mari3l was using the commonly understood use of the term.

Either way the point is entirely moot - as you pointed out most "standard" rounds fired from a sufficiently powerful gun can punch through armour anyway.

[freakazoid]

I always understood "amour piercing" to refer to ammunition with increased capacity to pierce armour.

While that is what it is, it is just that any anti-gun laws that would restrict them don't make that distinction.

Also what is a "dum dum"?

[danyboy27]

a dum dum is a bulllet that is empty, when it touch its target the lead litteraly explode in small fragments, making a lot od damage.
but seriously, having guns is not really an explanation to the violence, its the climate that will determine the degree of violence. we, canadian love gun, perhaps not has much has american do, but the fact remain that many of us love them.

what reasonable would be to restrict certain weapons, anything stronger than a AK is IMO dont have its place has a self defense/hunting weapon.

has for explosives, people can already make their own, i dont quite know how you could interdict the sales of fertilizer.

[Comrade B]

Alright, I have been out of town for a while and not responding to this, but I think I am done with this argument.

Essentially the anarchist argument against me is that guns have just as much utility as a knife, and are just as dangerous, and if you believe that, I really can't say much more than that you are wrong.

I could continue debating with spetnaz, but also, I am on break, and feeling lazy, so have fun

[Ele'ill]

Well no. You said that murder and killing are the same thing. Also murder isn't premeditated killing. It can be premeditated but it doesn't even have to be.

Main Entry: 1mur·der http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?murder01.wav=murder')) Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\ Function: noun Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal Date: before 12th century 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought




All ammunition is "armor piercing" They all just vary on how much. Also a hunting rifle round is far more powerful than an AK round. So any ban on "armor piercing" rounds will automatically ban hunting rifles.

Military AP rounds differ from regular rounds greatly.




That is crap. That wouldn't be a successful revolution at all.

My point was that there will be hangups with any movement. This would be a massive one.




That only help me. If so many deaths are caused by accidents then we really should ban vehicles.

There are a lot of dangerous objects in our world. If we're going to ban accidental deaths we should also ban lightning, bees, sharks and stairs.

None of these can really be used by one human to kill another.




Well if you really are anti-gun then I can use facts to persuade to otherwise. But if you are simply playing Devils Advocate then that means that no matter what I say you will purposely look past facts just to have an argument, and this is a complete waste of my time.

How's this for a fact. http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/18918/At_Least_82_Killed_As_Gunmen_Rampage_In_India_city







a dum dum is a bulllet that is empty, when it touch its target the lead litteraly explode in small fragments, making a lot od damage.

Sounds awesome. I can't wait until someone shoots one of those at me.


what reasonable would be to restrict certain weapons, anything stronger than a AK is IMO dont have its place has a self defense/hunting weapon.

Maybe you answered your own question.


has for explosives, people can already make their own, i dont quite know how you could interdict the sales of fertilizer.

For the same reason a person will buy a pack of american spirit cigarettes rather than buy a can with four times as much tobacco for less money. They're lazy and don't want to roll their own. So if you start to market and sell bad boom stuff most people will buy it over the counter rather than make their own.

[danyboy27]

i said anything stronger than a ak. i didnt avocated the ban of gun like you did.

India have strong restriction on gun, 131 dead people so far.

you cant ban something and imagine peoples would smuggle it or buy it on the black market.

this method was efficient long long long time ago, when there was not that globalization effect that is making product from everywhere easily avaliable.

[Ele'ill]

i said anything stronger than a ak. i didnt avocated the ban of gun like you did.

India have strong restriction on gun, 131 dead people so far.

you cant ban something and imagine peoples would smuggle it or buy it on the black market.

this method was efficient long long long time ago, when there was not that globalization effect that is making product from everywhere easily avaliable.

And imagine if these guns were easy to get! :D

[danyboy27]

And imagine if these guns were easy to get! :D


then maybe the attacker would have been killed without the help of the cops.

its not like the avaliability of gun will make sudenlly people stupid and kill everywone.
avaliable or not, people will kill eachother, the degree of of violence is not related to gun but to the social and economical climate.

[Ele'ill]

its not like the avaliability of gun will make sudenlly people stupid and kill everywone.

I don't want people carrying deadly weapons around with them unless they've been properly trained. (Don't give me any crap about common items being 'deadly tools' either its already been done and undone in this thread several times. The difference is that a sword, fork, toothpick and knife can't accidently 'go off'.)


avaliable or not, people will kill eachother

Why make it easier for them to kill more per sitting?


the degree of of violence is not related to gun but to the social and economical climate.

The degree of violence is not related to guns. Its related to people, regardless of the social or economic climate.

[danyboy27]

I don't want people carrying deadly weapons around with them unless they've been properly trained.

i agree, people should receive proper training to use them, from a parent, or an official, but they should have a proper training to use them.

but people should have the right to own weapons.




Why make it easier for them to kill more per sitting?

we will not make it easier, again has i said, its all about proper teaching and common sense. anyone with a little bit of preparation can kill a LOT of people without gun, even more. take in consideration that many civilian killing that civilian did in the past was caused by giving gun to iresponsable mentally ill peoples.




The degree of violence is not related to guns. Its related to people, regardless of the social or economic climate.
no. we canadian own gun, and we dont have that muich firearm related violence than america.
basicly, with many little things like welfare and free healthcare, we reduced crimes over the years. the social climate is a lot more acceptable here than it is in america.

[Jazzratt]

The degree of violence is not related to guns. Its related to people, regardless of the social or economic climate.

People don't exist in a vacuum do they? They are affected, even guided, by the material conditions they exist in. Saying otherwise is idealist nonsense.