I believe he was saying the exact opposite of that if I understood him correctly.
Advertisement
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Mon May 20, 2019 12:58 am
by Telconi » Mon May 20, 2019 1:10 am
by Tobleste » Tue May 21, 2019 10:48 am
by Ors Might » Tue May 21, 2019 11:15 am
Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:Yeah but I like my odds better when I and my attacker are both armed vs when I’m disarmed and my attacker has a knife. I at least have a chance in the former but have no chance in the latter.
And if your attacker is armed and you're not or your attacker has drawn their gun and you haven't?
by Bear Stearns » Tue May 21, 2019 11:19 am
by Tobleste » Sat May 25, 2019 10:31 am
Ors Might wrote:Tobleste wrote:
And if your attacker is armed and you're not or your attacker has drawn their gun and you haven't?
And if my attacker has a knife and I have nothing? In all of these scenarios, I am best able to protect myself when I have a gun. Firearm ownership maximizes my defensive ability while not having a firearm reduces it significantly.
by Telconi » Tue May 28, 2019 2:20 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:All people should be pro-gun for a simple reason:
Revolution.
Socialism is Revolution.
Revolution is Liberty.
Liberty is Justice.
Guns ensure our Safety and Liberty, and help us with Socialist Revolution, or Revolution against Trump or Republican Dictators if need be.
That said I'm looking into Gun Control, trying to find a solution that has gun control but makes it so we can still have guns when the time to overthrow Tyrants or a System arises. Thus my position may change, but this is my current view.
by Communal concils » Tue May 28, 2019 2:25 pm
by Nova Cyberia » Tue May 28, 2019 2:27 pm
Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:And if my attacker has a knife and I have nothing? In all of these scenarios, I am best able to protect myself when I have a gun. Firearm ownership maximizes my defensive ability while not having a firearm reduces it significantly.
And by the same token, your opponent having a gun maximises your chances of being killed and them not having one reduces it significantly.
For emotional and cultural reasons, you want guns. That's it. Every other country gets by fine without guns and they're no less democratic or crime ridden than America. Quite the opposite if anything. There's no logical reason for your attachment to guns. You just want them.
by Blueflarst » Wed May 29, 2019 8:10 am
by Side 3 » Wed May 29, 2019 8:17 am
January 22nd, 0097: Stocks in the Zimmad Corporation have gone down by 5% today, following the military's decision to halt its purchase of the company's latest mobile armor. The unnamed mobile armor has been rumored to have been in development for the past 6 years, and would've been worth roughly $150 million.
by Ors Might » Wed May 29, 2019 12:56 pm
Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:And if my attacker has a knife and I have nothing? In all of these scenarios, I am best able to protect myself when I have a gun. Firearm ownership maximizes my defensive ability while not having a firearm reduces it significantly.
And by the same token, your opponent having a gun maximises your chances of being killed and them not having one reduces it significantly.
For emotional and cultural reasons, you want guns. That's it. Every other country gets by fine without guns and they're no less democratic or crime ridden than America. Quite the opposite if anything. There's no logical reason for your attachment to guns. You just want them.
by Tobleste » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:42 am
Ors Might wrote:Tobleste wrote:
And by the same token, your opponent having a gun maximises your chances of being killed and them not having one reduces it significantly.
For emotional and cultural reasons, you want guns. That's it. Every other country gets by fine without guns and they're no less democratic or crime ridden than America. Quite the opposite if anything. There's no logical reason for your attachment to guns. You just want them.
..yes and me having a gun maximizes my ability to defend myself, regardless of what my opponent has. If my opponent is physically superior to me, then us both being disarmed does me no favors in regards to the end result. That’s what you seem incapable of understanding.
Those people that’ve defended themselves from unarmed attackers with guns would disagree. But who gives a fuck about their lives, right?
by Maydona » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:52 am
Side 3 wrote:Of course authoritarian socialists, and authoritarians in general, should have guns! It would make shooting them much easier, because then you don't have to feel bad about them being unarmed!
by Ors Might » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:03 pm
Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:..yes and me having a gun maximizes my ability to defend myself, regardless of what my opponent has. If my opponent is physically superior to me, then us both being disarmed does me no favors in regards to the end result. That’s what you seem incapable of understanding.
Those people that’ve defended themselves from unarmed attackers with guns would disagree. But who gives a fuck about their lives, right?
I'm not incapable of understanding it. I'm just incapable of seeing how it's important. If your opponent has a gun, you having an APC maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has one, you having a tank maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has a rock, you having a cruise missile maximises your ability to defend yourself. Following your logic, every person is entitled to what best allows them to defend yourself which would be the most powerful weapon available. If guns are common, you can best defend yourself with something more dangerous. It's just constant escalation which constantly increases the risk of an accident that kills someone or of a weapon falling into the wrong hands. Your logic makes sense if your right to have the ability to kill someone comes before the good of the community as a whole which is the logic that prevails among American gun advocates. All because you're afraid of a big man beating you up, you want a country where everyone participates in a Mexican stand off and anyone that doesn't is endangering themselves.
Those unarmed people that die from guns easily acquired by those unfit to carry them would disagree with you but who gives a fuck about their lives right?
by Big Jim P » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:26 pm
Communal concils wrote:I think being pro-gun is essential. There is no reason for socialist like myself to reject this. We are pro-gun, as long as the people with the guns support us.
by Leninist Haven » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:19 pm
Maydona wrote:I'm what you'd consider an "authoritarian socialist" (whatever that means) and yes I'm pro gun, Marx himself even said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary."
by The New California Republic » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:29 pm
Leninist Haven wrote:I'm an authoritarian socialist, and I'm incredibly pro-take them all away 100%.
Leninist Haven wrote:I find the logic of them being useful in revolution as being too idealistic.
Leninist Haven wrote:The weapons available to the military of a nation will stop any MODERN revolution in its tracks.
Leninist Haven wrote:A revolution starting in modern day Petrograd, if it got wayyyyy out of hand, would just be nuked.
Leninist Haven wrote:Then again, my take is extremely cynical.
by LiberNovusAmericae » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:33 pm
Big Jim P wrote:Communal concils wrote:I think being pro-gun is essential. There is no reason for socialist like myself to reject this. We are pro-gun, as long as the people with the guns support us.
You just don't want those who would use gun to defend themselves against you to have them. We know this already.
by The New California Republic » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:34 pm
Big Jim P wrote:Communal concils wrote:I think being pro-gun is essential. There is no reason for socialist like myself to reject this. We are pro-gun, as long as the people with the guns support us.
You just don't want those who would use gun to defend themselves against you to have them. We know this already.
by Icelandic Military Junta » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:42 pm
Icelandic Press: Medical: Cure research slows as monkey population dies of tuberculosis| Internal: Paganism grows in Akureyri| International: Last sane settlement with contact with Iceland is destroyed in Greenland by starvation, despite Icelandic efforts to keep it alive.
by The New California Republic » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:47 pm
by Leninist Haven » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:47 pm
by Risastorstein » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:48 pm
by The New California Republic » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:51 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: -Britain-, Bhang Bhang Duc, BrightonBurg, Dumb Ideologies, DutchFormosa, El Lazaro, Fartsniffage, Great Eternal Taldorei, Kareia, Kostane, Lemueria, Lily212, Minoa, Ovstylap, Page, Potatopelago, Quasi-Stellar Star Civilizations, The Archregimancy, The Notorious Mad Jack, Tungstan
Advertisement