Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Owning weapons

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by SurgeryXdisaster, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    ah yes, if there was an anarcho society, i would be a hermit in a log cabin who hunts for food and doesn't socialize much with others, and that would be my right to choose to live that way.
     
  2. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Then you are an individualist and your thought is definatly incompatible with collectivism and direct democracy if you refuse what 99.9999% of the population would decide.

    No, it is totally on-topic.

    Now this is a non-sense argument. It's the same fucking thing with guns, they are only feasable by state theft and blah blah blah. I remind you that the weapons industry IS THE BIGGEST INDUSTRY, above drugs and oil.

    The argument is the same : the sole fact of owning a nuclear bomb is not harming anyone.

    If you don't like my example then let's take something else. Can i own massive anthrax ammounts just for fun, anyway it's not harming anyone ? Rocket launchers ? Can i sell suicide bombs belts ?

    Wtf is the point of the money in this argument ? That's totally off topic

    Now you are just being crazy and paranoid.

    NGNM syndroma.

    I never talked about that, i'm just giving my opinion. My point is that once the revolution is done, guns shouldn't be sold anymore because there is already massive ammount of guns and because we would want to get rid of the biggest industry of the world. Secondly, i'd prefer living in a community where peoples have chosen to live without guns, but like i said in my other post we can't control all guns because there is more guns than cars.

    Now stop being paranoid or this debate is going to be stupid.


    I'm all for an armed revolution, i was talking about guns in a post-revolutionnary society


    All of these examples haven't been created for the sole purpose of killing peoples. And also, it represent a very lesser threat since you can't kill peoples at distance and fast, and also because you will never see an army armed with knives.
     
  3. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Up until the invention of guns armies were in fact armed with very large knives, we call them swords. Clubs were invented to kill. It works better than the bare hand. The simple fact is it will alway be humans that kill not the tool. It's pretty cliche but guns don't kill. Without the human to pull the trigger they are little more than a paper weight.

    We have always killed each other and I fear we always. I hope we can get away from that. Until we do,humans will continue to kill and guns, rocks, and everything else will merely be a tool to accomplish that. Outlawing things like that will not stop it. It will only make you unable to defend yourself. That is precisely the reason any government that wishes to exercise total control over its population will take all means to disarm the people.
     
  4. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    so you are pretending that since peoples kill and guns doesnt peoples, there is no point in controlling the weapons and it should be sold everywhere, you should be able to buy a ak-47 and a rocket launcher just like you buy a knife or bubble gun.

    then if guns have nothing to do with murder, why the USA is the country with the most crime, the most gunshots, and also the country imprisonning the most peoples ? please enlighten me.
     
  5. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    The reason the US has such a high prison rate is due to our inane drug policy. We as a nation have not learned our lessons from our previous experiment with prohibition. But that has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with a segment of our population seeking to control the actions of another.

    As far as property crime and violent crime, those rates have been in decline for decades. Per capita the US is 24th in the world for murder with a rate of 0.042802 per 1000. The country that is 1st is Columbia with 0.617847. As far as pure numbers of murders then India is 1st with 37,170. The US is 5th with 21.553.

    If you look at only murders with a firearm the South Africa is number one with 31,918. Colombia is second with 21,898. The US is 5th with 9,369. That means less than half of all murders in the US are committed with a firearm.

    Colombia, South Africa and India all have much stricter gun control laws yet have much more gun related violence. There are numerous reasons for this. Economy is huge part of it. Desperate people will do desperate things. You have the illegal drug trade in Colombia and to some degree in India. This also contributes. Then you have the very nature of crime. It is much easier to target someone without the means to defend themselves.

    As I have stated before humans by their very nature are violent creatures. Look at history and it will be very apparent. While I believe the vast majority of people are good and wish only to live in peace there will always be those that are not. These are the same people that no matter what law you pass to control guns will obtain one. What is to stop them? If they are willing to commit, what I believe to be one of the worst crimes possible, then why would the obey a law saying they cannot own a firearm? That is the basic flaw in gun control.

    He who trades Liberty for the sense of security will receive neither, and will lose both.
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    You can't compare an occidental society with a normal situation with a chaotic country filled up with violence like Colombia or South Africa. By the way, those two countrys are totally incapable of controlling the weapons. And colombia is almost at civil war with the FARC fighting against the government and the paramilitaries since years and years.

    If we remove all countries with a special situation USA will be left in the first place. And anyway, being in the top5 is already too much.

    How do you explain that your canadian neighbors have a much more lower numbers of murders by firearms ?? we have half less murders than you and we are just next to you in geographical locations.

    You are wrong by saying that the numbers have been on decline since decades.
    Since 1964, the U.S. crime rate has increased by as much as 350%, and over 11 million crimes were reported in the year 2007 alone.[10] Crime in the United States has fluctuated considerably over the course of the last half-century, rising significantly in the late 1960s and 1970s, peaking in the 1980s and then decreasing considerably in the 1990s.
    Despite the recent stagnation of the homicide rate, however, property and violent crimes overall have continued to decrease, though at a considerably slower pace than in the 1990s.[7] Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2004 as in 1969, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1966. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1974, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.


    Anyway, let's say you remove all problems caused by capitalism like proprety crimes and other thefts. You will still find USA in the top countries with the most murders and the most violent crimes..

    It will be harder for them to pass to the act. Negating that a world with less guns would have no impact on the number of murders and violent crime is total bullshit and a fake argument from the mouth of guns defenders. You can't say that it isn't easier and more temptative to pass to the act when you got an arsenal of guns in your own house, and that it is much more easier and faster to kill by pulling a trigger, it's like pressing a button to kill someone. And think about children, god damnit just watch Bowling for Columbine.

    And a much more important problem in a libertarian society would be the possibility for fascists and other counter-revolutionaries to arm themselves and start an army to take the power. So fuck their second amendement and fuck peoples who want to take the power with weapons.


    Wow Benjamin Franklin is so anarcho eh ? Got more shitty quotes to share with us ?

    You love your constitution don't you ?? Thank your government for your laws !!

    that's so anarcho, wow !
     
  7. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Actually the first thing I mentioned is that violent crime has been on the decrease. If you look at the statement that homicide is the at the same level as 1966 you also have to look at the popluation. Their has been a huge increase since then. Yet the number has stayed the same. That results in a per captia decrease. Crime has increased, but this includes drug crime, Marijuana possession and such. Drug possession is an artificial crime that strips no one of any liberty. The laws in this case do that and there for are wrong and need to be changed. I think we will probably agree on that much.

    That one is easy. Lower population. That is why India was used as an example. They have more people so it stands to reason that they will have more murder. If that holds true then the inverse must be true as well. Fewer people equals fewer murder.

    This is exactly my point. If you deny the average person the ability to defend themselves then someone WILL take advantage of that fact. This is precisely what the Nazi's did upon gaining power. They made it illegal to own a weapon and therefore to resist.
    You want to know what the school shootings all have in common? They all happen in "gun free zones". I do not think it is any coincidence that that has never happened at a gun show. You'd think with all the guns and the gun nuts there that people would get shot all the time. Yet this is not the case for one very simple reason, it's a hard target and will result in immediate death for the person attempting it.

    I never claimed that Franklin was an anarchist. He was though a revolutionary. I think that quote still applies if you would honestly think about it. It basically says this. Life by its inherent nature is dangerous. You have a 100% chance of death. You will never be safe because it is impossible. So to give away your freedom to try to FEEL safe will gain you nothing.

    I don't claim to be an anarchist. I just enjoy exchanging ideas (respectfully I might add) with as many different view points as possible. This is how we learn about each other and more importantly how we learn about ourselves. I believe that when we know each other and ourselves we will find the world both of us are looking for. One where we don't need to each other. One where we don't need a government parental figure to tell people how to behave. We will do this out of mutual respect.
     
  8. JesusCrust

    JesusCrust Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    1,085

    1

    0

    Apr 17, 2010
     
    Ahhh, another thread that Ungovernable decided to take over. No point for me posting in it anymore. Except right now.
     
  9. bgrass

    bgrass Experienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    for ungovernable (but sure wants to govern others)

    What are you and your friends going to do to me? Will you kill me like the state would? If you'll kill me over a nuclear weapon, how about some anthrax? Do I need to come ask you permission to have what I want or build what I want? How about an automatic rifle? semi auto? bolt action? a sword? where's the line? Why do you get to decide? Why do you and your group get to decide against anyone? What gives you the authority? At what percentage of the population does murder become alright?

    If you'll just stick to nasty words and dirty looks, then I got no problem, you can say what you want, just keep your hands to yourself.
     
  10. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Wow hahaha another fucking idiot, stop paranoia dude. Fucking americans brainwashed by their constitution that doesn't even realize the whole world doesn't share your definition of equality.

    I never talked about killing anybody, i specified in my message that gun control in an anarchist society would be impossible since the USA have more weapons than cars (it's a fact) and we can't just go around and do perquisitions in each house.

    If an anarchist community decide together that they don't want weapons it's their right and you can fuck off, you can't go against what the majority of the peoples wants or else YOU are the one who want to govern others

    And yeah following the stupid mentality of some peoples here, why wouldn't I be allowed to have anthrax or a nuclear bomb if you are allowed to have war weapons beacause "it's peoples who kill, not weapons"

    so what the fuck is your problem ? i'm not allowed to have my opinions and express my arguments now ? not my fault if you can't argue !!

    it's funny how you don't say anything about Ghoul, yet he is argueing more than me and also "taking over the topic"

    why the fuck are you participating to a debate forum if you are against debates ?



    Violent crime is on the decrease because USA is one of the most repressive country in the world, very hard punishments and prison sentence unlike canada, and also you have the death penality unlike canada again

    Your argument is bullshit and hypocrite. Just above you were explaining that only the murder per capita is the only numbers that matters, yet canada have a FOUR TIMES LESS MURDER PER CAPITA THAN THE UNITED STATES

    # 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
    # 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people

    Do you even read the stats that YOU are referring to ??

    By the way united states is ABOVE india in the number of murders per capita statistics even if the country is more chaotic than USA and with more population than the USA

    ahahahahahahahhahaha..... giving everyone a weapon isn't never going to stop the fascists from taking the power.... or else there wouldn't be like 200 different neo-nazi militias in the USA

    The only people who should (read: SHOULD, not MUST, this is only my opinion... just a precision before some other moron starts saying i want to govern peoples), the only peoples who should be allowed to use weapons to defend the society should be peoples federated through organizations at the service of the people. Pretty much like the militants who were fighting against fascism during the anarchist spanish civil war against the fascists, they were all organized under the banner of anarchist syndicates and organisations like the CNT and the POUM.

    Giving everyone a weapon without any control in a society where the previous authority - the same authority that was maintening order and preventing the peoples from using those weapons - for murder would be abolished would be the best way to lead this society to chaos, disorder, tribal wars, and endless civil wars.

    It's funny that you quote hitler and the nazis yet you forgot to mention that the nazis organized and took power with weapons, remember they tryed to do a Coup with weapons and then the first thing they did after taking the power was to use weapons to control peoples.

    Wow probably one of the most stupid thing i ever heard.... So guns should be tolerated at school, because it would be so much safier !!! hahahahahah

    Good. At least you know you are not an anarchist.
     
  11. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    I think the reason no one mentioned me is because while I disagree with you I have never called you or anyone else an idiot or a moron.
     
  12. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Ghoul so what? You have picked up where NGNM85 left off, arguing till your blue in the face, in another thread you stated to Ungov. "wow something we actually agree on" after countless arguing on other threads. Disagreeing with Ungov or anyone else on here is healthy of course and makes for great debates, but just plain holding a childish grudge against him is lame and I have noticed it ghoul, but was hoping that I was mistaken. You people realize that no Ungov means no AP.net right? On the insults and abusive language thread the community voted to put up with minor insults and language so.....

    "think the reason no one mentioned me is because while I disagree with you I have never called you or anyone else an idiot or a moron."

    lets please try to keep this about the topic and not turn it into yet another personal he said she said.....cool?
     
  13. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    i didn't call you an idiot or a moron neither, stop lying and putting words in my mouth.

    "quote it or shut up"

    I called bgrass an idiot because he insulted me, made fun of my nickname and said i want to govern peoples. As always, i am polite with those who are polite with me, and i insult the persons who insult me. But you didn't say anything about bgrass insulting me...

    but like punkmar77 said



    Oh and it's funny how you ignored all of my arguments. You act and sound like NGNM ;)
     
  14. ghoul

    ghoul Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    I have no grudge. I was enjoying the debate. He asked why I wasn't mentioned as taking over the thread and I offered an answer. I personally take no offense at name calling. I was merely suggesting that if you want to get your ideas across to people, name calling is the quickest way to fail.

    Me saying that we agree on something was an attempt to stop any feelings of animosity between us and prevent a grudge. It was to say "Hey look, even though we disagree we have things in common."

    My thoughts exactly.
     
  15. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Your argument is bullshit, read the debate again i didn't insult anybody when JesusCrust posted his message so it's not a good reason.

    For the rest like i have said, respect me and i will respect you.
     
  16. Lunadimae

    Lunadimae Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    I'm starting to have problem with direct democracy, I mean what if a guy you know is innocent while another guy accuses him of murder and the community all vote for executing/exiling him? What then? Suppose the guy is purely innocent. I think consensus decision making is for the best.


    I don't know if this is on topic, but a person I know was shot twice in the back of his head yesterday by his younger step-brother after an argument about some lands using an illegal weapon which he did not have any papers/training for, he just bought it from a store or from a friend, the gun wasn't even registered. The guy that shot him is around 20 years old. Anyway, he has somehow survived that (yeah, I don't actually know how) and the doctors have successfully removed the two bullets but are waiting for him to either die or stay alive through the next 24 hours.

    I think that goes to show that guns with idiots can seriously injure someone or even kill. Precautions should be taken to specify who can and who cannot wield a weapon, a weapon is dangerous thing, not some fucking toy. It should have the most restrictions than anything else.
     
  17. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Consensus decision is the same damn thing, with the same problems.

    Voting for death penality ? You have a very weird conception of a direct democracy....

    If you know that someone is innocent then just give evidences to the voters and they will vote against the exile. It's a very more democratic form of conflict resolution than jurys.

    What exactly do you propose ? Some sort of authority over the direct democracy to ensure everything is going alright ?

    Critizing direct democracy is easy, proposing alternatives is not. And don't talk about consensus, it's the same thing. There is still a possibility of a consensus for the exile of an innocent.

    Consensus is still the majority, just without votes. Same thing, just less precise and less "official"

    Of course a direct democracy vote should always be preceded by a debate to value each side's argument.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
     
  18. Lunadimae

    Lunadimae Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    Evidence? What if you have none, it's not like you were following the guy with a camera all day. What I suggest is a form of agreement instead of voting for who you think is right or who you like more (which happens). For a very rough and vague example, look at what happened to Jesus and Barabas or something, Barabas was more famous and as a result had been more popular with the "voting" (An example, I don't want anyone to start a shitstorm). This happens over here with political leaders, people do not vote for who can do something for a change, but vote for their party's leader in order to show them that we are many and we won and brag about their victory over the opposing party while the rest of us eat shit.

    An agreement or middle-ground would be far better if found between the two sides, and if that has not been achieved, the community would then resort to direct democracy. That would sound better and more fair, and would say "at least we tried".

    Consensus decision-making is when you find a middle-ground that suits the majority and the minority, where the minority would still have a say and effect concerning the decision taken. Having a Tyranny of the Majority due to direct democracy would negatively affect the community.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

    From Wiki:

    Hope you got the idea.
     
  19. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    there won't be any death penalties in an anarcho society... at least none that i would I would be a part of.
     
  20. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    Then how the fuck can you be sure that he has really not commited the accused crimes ?

    Seriously inform yourself about how a trial works or something... If someone is accused of something, it's because there is evidence. If you think it's a false accusation, then you have to prove it.


    What you don't understand is that consensus or direct democracy is basically the same thing. And you don't vote for someone, you vote for something. You really don't understand what direct democracy is all about....

    You don't understand direct democracy. It's not about voting for someone, it's about voting for the decisions that this person would take

    What you don't understand is that consensus is the same thing as direct democracy, minus the vote system. It's just harder to know the exact statistics of who voted for what.

    Your idea of a middle-ground is funny but not realisable. What for your example of a trial around a murder ? What's the middle ground ?? Half guilty and half innocent ??

    Tyranny of the majority ?? hahahahahahaahaha............ stupid fucking liberal quote. This term comes from liberal philosophy.

    Consensus would still be the tyranny of the majority since there is ALWAYS a minority not agreeing with the majority. Face it, we don't live in a perfect world, there will always be some persons disagreeing with others.

    Direct democracy is used by almost all anarchists. Just type "anarchism" and "direct democracy" in google, you will find thousands of anarchist philosophers and anarchist texts supporting direct democracy.

    You should start a topic about direct democracy because now we are getting away from the subject

    If only you understood your own idea...
     
Loading...