Marxist position on gun control?

[DoCt SPARTAN]

I dont think you should be able to get a M16 so easy, should be background checks on metal illnesses and other capabilities. also no giant box clips, there is absolutley no reason to have any excuse to have this on a gun! What will you hunt a Freaking' T-Rex?. Believe pistols, shotguns,rifles, semi assault (with small clips)

[Lowtech]

Insufficient for what purpose, exactly?

insufficient in regulating who should and shouldn't own a gun or what types of firearms. regulation in this sense is actually a kind of law enforcement. arguing for more guns in the hands of people and less law enforcement is ridiculous.

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

crime in general. self defense is good; self defense using firearms is good also, but don't assume a gun in and of itself is enough self defense, you won't always have time to dig it out of a drawer or be lucky enough to not have it wrestled away from you. if someone walks around boasting that they're safer for owning a gun but aren't serious about self defense are actually compensating for penis size or being down right sexually repressed.

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.

when rebellion is necessary is a whole other context. if gun reactionaries really cared about this "disparity" you describe, they wouldn't vote for idiots that draft things that rhyme with "the patriot act"

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

those who aren't right-wing reactionaries are the exception.

the culture that advocates "gun ownership" as an expression of xenophobia is the same culture that advocates larger prisons instead of better law enforcement and social safety nets.

why fix a problem when you can throw money at it or bullets?

[Tuggback]

The UK and Sweden both have gun laws restricting arms. One is a free wheeling capitalist nation with a lot of violent crime despite the restriction. The other has less crime but it's due more to the standard of living being met by a strong welfare state, not the lack of weapons.

US liberals are really ignoring the socio-economic aspect of this whole debate.

Sweden is actually number four in Europe when it comes to the number of firearms per capita. We are a nation of hunters.

[MP5]

I will agree with gun control the day when the state forces throw away their guns but until then i do not believe that any guns should be banned including combat weapons such as fully automatic assault rifles, submachine guns, machine pistols, automatic combat shotguns, etc. Why should we as Communists allow the bourgeois state to tell us if we are or are not allowed to own weapons?

This is not to say i agree with the NRA at all but just because those morons give all gun owners a bad name does not mean that Socialists should toss away their guns.

[Lowtech]

I will agree with gun control the day when the state forces throw away their guns but until then i do not believe that any guns should be banned including combat weapons such as fully automatic assault rifles, submachine guns, machine pistols, automatic combat shotguns, etc. Why should we as Communists allow the bourgeois state to tell us if we are or are not allowed to own weapons?

This is not to say i agree with the NRA at all but just because those morons give all gun owners a bad name does not mean that Socialists should toss away their guns.

No one is suggesting to go completely without guns. But better gun regulation is needed.

Other users here have claimed in the US there is no real gun violence epidemic. If this is so, why do some people become sirvivalist wackos?

its not so much the benefit of gun ownership that they advocate as it is what it means to them to have a gun; protection against urbanized minorities they see as criminals.

In the US at the very least, only two kinds of people have or want guns; those who are gang affiliated or those that are racist and think non whites are taking over thier world.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

No one is suggesting to go completely without guns. But better gun regulation is needed.

Other users here have claimed in the US there is no real gun violence epidemic. If this is so, why do some people become sirvivalist wackos?

its not so much the benefit of gun ownership that they advocate as it is what it means to them to have a gun; protection against urbanized minorities they see as criminals.

In the US at the very least, only two kinds of people have or want guns; those who are gang affiliated or those that are racist and think non whites are taking over thier world.

They become surivalist wackos because they become survivalist wackos? It has nothing to do with the fact that gun deaths are lower than alcohol-related deaths. Is there an alcohol death epidemic in the US? It's loaded terminology used as a talking point.


As for that last bit, you're obviously quite ignorant so I don't know why you're in the thread.

[Lowtech]

They become surivalist wackos because they become survivalist wackos? It has nothing to do with the fact that gun deaths are lower than alcohol-related deaths. Is there an alcohol death epidemic in the US? It's loaded terminology used as a talking point.


As for that last bit, you're obviously quite ignorant so I don't know why you're in the thread.

i am ignorant about many things, but i don't buy a gun to compensate for my ignorance and inability to address things that i dislike.

gun rights advocates are the equivalent of road rage applied to life in general.

google the video: How Russians deal with road rage - the gun in the video was likely unloaded. now the guy chasing them was deterred but hey, in his mind he probably just needed a bigger gun.

"an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

[Nick]

I think it's gay to not have gun. I truly believe that guns make you a better person to be around. I think all faggots should not have a gun.

[ellipsis]

I think it's gay to not have gun. I truly believe that guns make you a better person to be around. I think all faggots should not have a gun.

and banned.

[Narcissus]

You can't pin capitalism on humanity, since the species has been around for much longer than capitalism has. You are just sublimating your political frustrations into a generalised devaluation of the human species, and that is not critical thinking at all.

Well I'm sure as hell not pinning capitalism on frogs. My political frustrations are but a fraction of my quarrels with humanity, and source of my misanthropy. Has any species enslaved and killed so many living things as humans? The answer you are looking for is 'no'.

Except that humans can apologise and make amends for their actions, unlike other animals.

Perhaps if they are so clever as to apologise, they could have not done the awful thing in the first place. There are some things one cannot make amends for. For example if someone were to kill your mother I imagine 'I'm sorry, have $10,000' wouldn't really cut it.

Where as animals do whatever takes their fancy and never apologise or try to make up for any of the bad things they do.

Children get less jail time for murder than adults. Why is this? Because children do not always have all the mental faculties that adults have, and may be excused for their actions to a certain extent.

Wolves are even less smart than 11 year old humans, and so I would excuse the wolf of murder before the child.

My point is that we have the mental faculties to survive without killing animals and other humans yet we continue to do so. We enslave animals and humans when it is not neccessary to do so.

Our species is the cruelest that lives. I am ashamed of it.

I admit that removing guns would only reduce the amount of deaths by a little, but for me any amount of people being saved is enough to sacrifice slightly cheaper food, and a little sport.

A true revolutionary loves his people more than he hates his oppressor.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

and banned.

Thanks man! God, what an a-hole.
Makes me wishi was gay though.

Well I'm sure as hell not pinning capitalism on frogs. My political frustrations are but a fraction of my quarrels with humanity, and source of my misanthropy. Has any species enslaved and killed so many living things as humans? The answer you are looking for is 'no'.



Perhaps if they are so clever as to apologise, they could have not done the awful thing in the first place. There are some things one cannot make amends for. For example if someone were to kill your mother I imagine 'I'm sorry, have $10,000' wouldn't really cut it.



Children get less jail time for murder than adults. Why is this? Because children do not always have all the mental faculties that adults have, and may be excused for their actions to a certain extent.

Wolves are even less smart than 11 year old humans, and so I would excuse the wolf of murder before the child.

My point is that we have the mental faculties to survive without killing animals and other humans yet we continue to do so. We enslave animals and humans when it is not neccessary to do so.

Our species is the cruelest that lives. I am ashamed of it.

I admit that removing guns would only reduce the amount of deaths by a little, but for me any amount of people being saved is enough to sacrifice slightly cheaper food, and a little sport.

A true revolutionary loves his people more than he hates his oppressor.

Every death is one too much. We don't need gun-control, we need a complete gun-ban.

Guns are made to kill or maime people or animals. No good could ever come from that.

Owning a gun sounds a bit like owning a huge car. What do you need to compensate?

[MP5]

No one is suggesting to go completely without guns. But better gun regulation is needed.

Other users here have claimed in the US there is no real gun violence epidemic. If this is so, why do some people become sirvivalist wackos?

its not so much the benefit of gun ownership that they advocate as it is what it means to them to have a gun; protection against urbanized minorities they see as criminals.

In the US at the very least, only two kinds of people have or want guns; those who are gang affiliated or those that are racist and think non whites are taking over thier world.

They become survivalist nut jobs because they are reactionary conservatives who still do not know that the cold war is over. They would be like that guns or no. Also i know many people in both Canada and the US that have guns that fit neither of those categories and i would be one of them. Also i don't think guns can be given all the blame for all the gun related deaths in the US. Just because there are alot of guns in a area does not mean there will be a high murder rate as if this was the case my province would have the highest murder rate in Canada instead of one of the lowest. Granted if you pull a gun on someone here you are considered a pussy right from the bat for not being able to fight like a man so maybe there's just more taboo against gun violence here.

Also believe it or not people do need guns for hunting as it is a rather cheap way to get alot of meat. Hell for the price of a .303 shell and getting someone to cut it up i now have a freezer full of moose meat that cost all total about $160. If i where to buy that much beef in a supermarket it would run me into the thousands.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well I'm sure as hell not pinning capitalism on frogs.

You're missing the point, which is that when it comes to naturally developed socioeconomic arrangements, playing the blame game is stupid and futile. One can point the finger at individuals who actively support oppressive systems, but if you're going to go beyond that then you might as well hang yourself as a collaborator.

My political frustrations are but a fraction of my quarrels with humanity, and source of my misanthropy. Has any species enslaved and killed so many living things as humans? The answer you are looking for is 'no'.

I dunno, ants fight each other a lot, and practice slavery themselves. Nature isn't nice, whatever you might have learned from Disney.

Perhaps if they are so clever as to apologise, they could have not done the awful thing in the first place.

Being able to apologise, make amends and show remorse in no ways implies perfect behaviour - the point is that we can recognise when we do fuck up, whereas animals only fear retribution.

There are some things one cannot make amends for. For example if someone were to kill your mother I imagine 'I'm sorry, have $10,000' wouldn't really cut it.

Maybe not, but if I had good reason to believe that they truly regretted their actions, then I might find it in myself to forgive them.

Children get less jail time for murder than adults. Why is this? Because children do not always have all the mental faculties that adults have, and may be excused for their actions to a certain extent.

Wolves are even less smart than 11 year old humans, and so I would excuse the wolf of murder before the child.

Except that wolves don't grow up into adult humans with the capacity for criminal responsibility. Once again you are comparing oranges with potatoes.

My point is that we have the mental faculties to survive without killing animals and other humans yet we continue to do so. We enslave animals and humans when it is not neccessary to do so.

Define "necessary", since merely by living we kill and displace other animals.

Our species is the cruelest that lives. I am ashamed of it.

I'm ashamed of you. Stop pushing human concepts onto creatures incapable of even comprehending them. It is a burden they literally cannot bear.

I admit that removing guns would only reduce the amount of deaths by a little, but for me any amount of people being saved is enough to sacrifice slightly cheaper food, and a little sport.

Humans need food and entertainment, and there are more effective ways of reducing human deaths which do not involve disarming hunters and shooters.

A true revolutionary loves his people more than he hates his oppressor.

Other animals are not people.

Every death is one too much. We don't need gun-control, we need a complete gun-ban.

Guns are made to kill or maime people or animals. No good could ever come from that.

Owning a gun sounds a bit like owning a huge car. What do you need to compensate?

Do you think we should ban all drugs and alcohol? After all, every death is one too much...

[Narcissus]

You're missing the point, which is that when it comes to naturally developed socioeconomic arrangements, playing the blame game is stupid and futile. One can point the finger at individuals who actively support oppressive systems, but if you're going to go beyond that then you might as well hang yourself as a collaborator.

You have turned this into something it was not. My point was that humans are capable of the most cruel things - more so than any other species; despite being unique in having the capability for moral decisions. My example was capitalism. Enslavement on a global scale.

I dunno, ants fight each other a lot, and practice slavery themselves. Nature isn't nice, whatever you might have learned from Disney.

I dislike Disney, as did my mother and father; I'm glad to say that none of the crap was pushed down my throat.

I am aware that nature is cutthroat. Humans are smart enough not to have to be.

Maybe not, but if I had good reason to believe that they truly regretted their actions, then I might find it in myself to forgive them.

An admirably moral decision. This is an example of the greatness humans are capable of, but unfortunately all to often fail to live up to, in favour of petty selfishness.

Define "necessary", since merely by living we kill and displace other animals.

Necessary means necessary. Essential to survival. It is not essential to your survival that you and your friends be the ones to kill things with guns.

Being able to apologise, make amends and show remorse in no ways implies perfect behaviour - the point is that we can recognise when we do fuck up, whereas animals only fear retribution.

Except that wolves don't grow up into adult humans with the capacity for criminal responsibility. Once again you are comparing oranges with potatoes.

I'm ashamed of you. Stop pushing human concepts onto creatures incapable of even comprehending them. It is a burden they literally cannot bear.

All of these statements demonstrate my argument here. Animals have no sense of morality and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. Humans however have the capacity to consider the moral implications of their actions - and therefore can be held responsible for them.

Humans need food and entertainment, and there are more effective ways of reducing human deaths which do not involve disarming hunters and shooters.

Humans can get food in other ways. I really don't care about your precious hunters, and that they may lose murder as a sport.

Other animals are not people.

And therefore not worth caring about? Have a little solidarity for your fellow sentient beings. They have emotions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You have turned this into something it was not. My point was that humans are capable of the most cruel things - more so than any other species; despite being unique in having the capability for moral decisions. My example was capitalism. Enslavement on a global scale.

And my point was that capitalism can't be compared to the crimes of individuals.

I dislike Disney, as did my mother and father; I'm glad to say that none of the crap was pushed down my throat.

I am aware that nature is cutthroat. Humans are smart enough not to have to be.

The ability to recognise one's mistakes is not equivalent to having perfect behaviour.

Necessary means necessary. Essential to survival. It is not essential to your survival that you and your friends be the ones to kill things with guns.

It is not absolutely necessary to your survival that you possess a motor vehicle, or drink alcohol, or take drugs, or eat food containing anything beyond essential nutrients. All those things come at the expense of other animals' lives, so why not ban them as well?

All of these statements demonstrate my argument here. Animals have no sense of morality and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. Humans however have the capacity to consider the moral implications of their actions - and therefore can be held responsible for them.

And if the relative of hunted animals wish to bring charges, I'll support them all the way. But they don't, so...

Humans can get food in other ways. I really don't care about your precious hunters, and that they may lose murder as a sport.

Even if those ways (agriculture) involve the deaths of more animals in the long run?

And therefore not worth caring about? Have a little solidarity for your fellow sentient beings. They have emotions.

Solidarity is a two-way street. Most animals, except certain pets, would leave me to die or even take advantage of me in a deathly situation.

[Narcissus]

And my point was that capitalism can't be compared to the crimes of individuals.

Yes, I did not dispute this.

The ability to recognise one's mistakes is not equivalent to having perfect behaviour.

I agree. I didn't demand perfect behaviour. The point is not that you do something bad and are repentant. The point is that you consider the morality of the thing you are about to do, and don't do it if it is bad - which humans are capable of.

It is not absolutely necessary to your survival that you possess a motor vehicle, or drink alcohol, or take drugs, or eat food containing anything beyond essential nutrients. All those things come at the expense of other animals' lives, so why not ban them as well?

Freedom of practicality. There will be ways in which these things - transport and nutrition will be achieved in the future without animals having to die.

And if the relative of hunted animals wish to bring charges, I'll support them all the way. But they don't, so...

Mocking those without a voice... do you even care about anything other than yourself?

Even if those ways (agriculture) involve the deaths of more animals in the long run?

As we discussed earlier, yes the combine harvester will kill bugs and bunnies, but these will be accidental deaths in the feeding of millions of people.

If you are eating bacon it doesn't matter wether you hunted the pig, or you got it from the supermarket - a pig died for your bacon. You could even argue that the pigs killed by supermarket were always going to die, but the wild one wasn't.

Solidarity is a two-way street. Most animals, except certain pets, would leave me to die or even take advantage of me in a deathly situation.

Yes solidarity is a two-way street - as in - if I were in the pig's position I would want the human to stick up for me. The pig is getting screwed over. I've been screwed over before/I wouldn't want to be screwed over. I object to things being screwed over. I'm going to try to stop the pig getting screwed over.

The reason the pig probably won't save you is that it is too stupid. Several dogs however have saved people from drowning.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Also believe it or not people do need guns for hunting as it is a rather cheap way to get alot of meat. Hell for the price of a .303 shell and getting someone to cut it up i now have a freezer full of moose meat that cost all total about $160. If i where to buy that much beef in a supermarket it would run me into the thousands.

No, you WANT a gun for hunting. Why? Two reasons:

1) A lot of people use a crossbow. I think it's probably fairer to the animals and you can reuse the arrow. So it's cheaper too!
2) I'm a total hypocrit. I like meat...a lot. But if comes to the point where i have to kill my meat, i'll become vegetarian. Just like that. Why can't we all?

Do you think we should ban all drugs and alcohol? After all, every death is one too much...

You do that to yourself. You don't become a victim of a shooting by choice.
True, i don't care if they were banned. I don't do both.

But then you might ban food in total. You just might suffocate.
And some foods can give you cancer.
It's a shit argument.