Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Djoser** · 09-17-2011, 05:56 PM

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I'm sure you would have known that 1871.

**YaelTheGreat** · 09-17-2011, 05:57 PM

Yeah but when people have access to gun the kill them easier.

**Djoser** · 09-17-2011, 06:12 PM

Anyone can have access, but can still have enough control and sense to not go crazy. It's not giving people enough credit. Everyone isn't homicidal and blood-thirsty. If that was the case, then chefs can't be trusted with knives and would have to be monitored.

**1871** · (This post was last modified: 09-17-2011 06:38 PM by 1871.)

(09-17-2011 06:12 PM)Djoser Wrote: Anyone can have access, but can still have enough control and sense to not go crazy. It's not giving people enough credit. Everyone isn't homicidal and blood-thirsty. If that was the case, then chefs can't be trusted with knives and would have to be monitored.

what credit are you prepared to give the thousands of people who committed the gun crimes related to those stats?

Do you think that the homicide stats would be more or less if guns were not available? How many people kill eachother with knives as compared to guns - check out the previous link I posted

here it is again - homicides by weapon type;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomi...weapon.svg

Isolating gun supply to an illegal market isolates the problem more tha its open availability by a free market capitalist gun industry (where again its the poor who suffer the most). Then you can tackle the illegal market in gun supply until that has gone. Then you have a gun free society.

Most enlightened societies are moving in this direction;

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6421

Or else you coul continue to fetishise guns thinking they are for your protection while arming American boys with guns so they can let off steam in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The gun obsession and 'protection' rhetoric is part of the American psyche of violence and directly feeds into American imperialism.

**YaelTheGreat** · 09-17-2011, 06:40 PM

(09-17-2011 06:12 PM)Djoser Wrote: Anyone can have access, but can still have enough control and sense to not go crazy. It's not giving people enough credit. Everyone isn't homicidal and blood-thirsty. If that was the case, then chefs can't be trusted with knives and would have to be monitored.

You are giving society to much credit. Societal issues of today influence people actions toward violence. In a different society were people aren't poor, oppresses, unhappy, or influenced by media to show that violence is okay, then I would agree woth you. People are not blood-thirsty by nature, I agree with you about that, but our society has created people who may not be blood- thirsty but are willing to shed if they feel the need to.

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · 09-17-2011, 06:59 PM

All I gotta say is Lord of the Flies. I'd rather not give them guns

.

**YaelTheGreat** · 09-17-2011, 07:00 PM

Never read it, and I agree, somewhat.

**Djoser** · 09-17-2011, 07:01 PM

That's the issue we need to fix, as stated so many times before in the thread. You and I have both questioned "what's the point of gun regulation if people can get them either way?" and due to the fact that we're brought up to act and think in such ways.

since guns don't kill people, but people do, then we have to change the people, not the guns. Gang members join the military just to get training and then they have access to these military arsenal and then use the same tactics and weapons in their own town against their rivals and innocent people. Money is like another source of power for armed groups. And since they exist on both sides of "justice" and "crime" there will always be a high amount of guns used upon us and them by our hands and their own hands.

It's a matter of what to do until then. Why keep mentioning the stats? I don't necessarily disagree with you 1871 on that aspect. I already acknowledged guns aren't a deterrent to crime. I'm looking at what needs to be done before that route to isolation of guns is completed. A gun free capitalist American is an impossibility. For that to happen, the US would have to change itself completely, again leading back to changing people. Of course, when people are raised to be hostile by their environment, there will be inevitable violence. It becomes a lifestyle as me and Marioalosangeles pointed out. With that mentality, plus the conditions given, it's bound to happen. It's a cycle of crime justified by the structure of American society.

**YaelTheGreat** · 09-17-2011, 07:14 PM

It's hard to argue anything about gun control, legalization of weed, and social programs for the poor when we don't live in a country/ world that will allow any reform to work properly.

**shakur420** · (This post was last modified: 09-17-2011 07:22 PM by shakur420.)

One thing I have to dismiss, is the "paranoia" thing. People might be paranoid, some might, sure, I can see that. But not all. There are people living in real danger, and it's credible danger. We can't blame them for wanting a gun (or more police, or whatever) for protection. We can't marginalize that need for protection if we wanna be honest.

But I think we have to admit, or at least give some credibility to the notion that more guns equals more gun crime, more gun related deaths. Like I said, I'm pretty sure the evidence points in that direction. Some stuff has been posted about that.

So, how do we reconcile this? How do we accept people's right to protect themselves and acknowledge that giving out more guns might actually put them in greater danger, will likely increase their chances of death or injury? I still think that we need to push for things like education, reforms, changes in the system, deading police corruption, etc., etc. while excepting that people who want guns for protection should have quick, easy access to them. Our job, as society, is not to tell them that they can't adopt the solutions they see, the things that make sense to them, but to push to eliminate the root causes, the reasons they live in danger and feel the need for protection.

You can't honestly pretend that you care about the affects of terrorism when you simply talk about how many people "suicide bombers have killed" and that "security measures are needed", etc., etc. and completely ignore the root causes and refuse to address that "terrorists" have real grievances, and addressing those grievances is the solution, not "disarming terrorists". So, though I will admit that I'm inclined to believe that more guns equals more gun crime and gun related deaths, I don't think that in today's world, Malcom X or the Panthers were incorrect in arming themselves and promoting violent resistance for their survival.

(09-17-2011 07:14 PM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: It's hard to argue anything about gun control, legalization of weed, and social programs for the poor when we don't live in a country/ world that will allow any reform to work properly.

Why is that hard? People argued for an end to slavery, more civil rights, equality for women, the disabled and elderly in societies where these things didn't exist. Should they have abandoned these struggles, arguments and activism because it was unlikely that they would succeed? You're assuming that anything has ever been given to us by our governments, or ruling class rather. Nothing has ever been given to us, as it probably never will. We have to take it. How do we take it? By popular pressure, non-violent and violent resistance, strikes, organization, sit-ins, education, demonstrations, vandalism, art, solidarity, etc. You're right, they will never "allow" anything significant that we want, anything that curbs their power. So we take it, like always.

**YaelTheGreat** · 09-17-2011, 07:19 PM

I agree with you. If like Malcom X and Huey P. Newton were listened to more than MLK minorities would be living a much better life. I also agree with you about reforms, a socialist revolution would help us very much.

**Djoser** · 09-17-2011, 07:21 PM

(09-17-2011 07:14 PM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: It's hard to argue anything about gun control, legalization of weed, and social programs for the poor when we don't live in a country/ world that will allow any reform to work properly.

The legalization of weed, of all things, seems more likely to be the most successful without any repercussions. Well....scratch that. It depends on who "regulates" it and distributes it. Nevermind.