Marxist position on gun control?

[Narcissus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Os Cangaceiros]

But pigs/boar are so tasty!

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

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

[Os Cangaceiros]

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

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/...f-gun-control/

[The Red Comet]

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

[Flying Purple People Eater]

But pigs/boar are so tasty!



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

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

Bloody Ultra-left reactionaries.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Narcissus]

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

Never confuse strength with power.

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

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

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

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

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

[Narcissus]

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

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

Never confuse strength with power.

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

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

Ignoring reality can get you killed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Narcissus]

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

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

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

Ignoring reality can get you killed.

Who cares.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[l'Enfermé]

MOD ACTION:

Choler...just no...

This is a verbal warning

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

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

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

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

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

Who cares.

People who want to continue living?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How?

There is nothing special about human life/existence.

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

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

Maybe not to you. It does to me.

[Narcissus]

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

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

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

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

People who want to continue living?

The will to live is pathetic.

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

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

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

Your average dog is more innocent than your average human.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe not to you. It does to me.

Cool.

[Leftsolidarity]

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

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

Not really, since we're still doing it.

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

So you are posturing.

The will to live is pathetic.

Then why are you still bothering to find food?

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

Actually, we're not alone when it comes to slavery. Other animals aren't the angels you seem to think they are.

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

Your average dog is more innocent than your average human.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool.

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

[Popular Front of Judea]

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

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

Bloody Ultra-left reactionaries.

[Lowtech]

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

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

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

-gun regulation in the united states is completely insufficient.

Insufficient for what purpose, exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Os Cangaceiros]

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

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