Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[Kowani]

Not my position, but I can see how it would be read that way. Rather, the eradication of the needs for those arms leads to people laying them down.
Tell me again how well that worked out for Chicago.

There is always a need, the hypothetical future is reason enough. You may like the current government, but the next may be worse.

Go back and read the rest of the conversation, will you?

You try waging a city wide gang war with knives, you’ll find it’s not worth the effort.

Try waging a gang war with improvised and stolen weapons that kill just as well, you’ll find its not worth the effort (like all crime should be) but it works well.

And you’ll get far less lives lost that way.

[Telconi]

Knife attacks aren’t less devastating

You try waging a city wide gang war with knives, you’ll find it’s not worth the effort.

Yet your against socialism which would help greatly

Fundamentally unworkable.

True but then again whilst that does almost complete abolish the desire for robbery-motivated homicide(a statistically significant type in many countries), there will still be the occasional sexually sadistic, domestic dispute based or revenge motivated homicide.

Fun fact. Having a gun in the house increases the risk of homicide in a domestic violence situation.

They do, but they're far less than a 1 to 1 ratio.

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

As for having "nothing to lose" the statistical affluence of a robber is higher than the statistical affluence of their victim.

Citation needed.

Making the perfect the enemy of the good implies your plan is good. I'm making the perfect, the good, the decent, and the kinda shitty the enemy of the vile and inhumanely evil.

[Soviet Tankistan]

And you’ll get far less lives lost that way.

Does proof of purchase make a weapon deadlier?

[Kowani]

You try waging a city wide gang war with knives, you’ll find it’s not worth the effort.


Fundamentally unworkable.


Fun fact. Having a gun in the house increases the risk of homicide in a domestic violence situation.

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Citation needed.

Making the perfect the enemy of the good i.plies your plan is good. I'm making the perfect, the good, the decent, and the kinda shitty the enemy of the vile and inhumanely evil.

You’ve yet to explain how it is actually any of those things.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Go back and read the rest of the conversation, will you?

I read and comprehended it, which is more I can say for you. If you read it, why did you ask this question?

[Telconi]

Making the perfect the enemy of the good i.plies your plan is good. I'm making the perfect, the good, the decent, and the kinda shitty the enemy of the vile and inhumanely evil.

You’ve yet to explain how it is actually any of those things.

It seeks to remove weaponry from private posession.

[Kowani]

And you’ll get far less lives lost that way.

Does proof of purchase make a weapon deadlier?

It should not a restriction on guns, but rather a complete elimination thereof.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Does proof of purchase make a weapon deadlier?

It should not a restriction on guns, but rather a complete elimination thereof.

Banning something does not make it disappear. Guns can be made and stolen. They would not have legitimacy, but that does not decide how lethal they are. The only way to remove guns would be to remove everything needed in making them, including arms.

[Kowani]

You’ve yet to explain how it is actually any of those things.

It seeks to remove weaponry from private posession.

See, we disagree on whether this is bad. I do not believe it to be.

It should not a restriction on guns, but rather a complete elimination thereof.

Banning something does not make it disappear. Guns can be made and stolen. They would not have legitimacy, but that does not decide how lethal they are. The only way to remove guns would be to remove everything needed in making them, including arms.

And thus, as I said earlier, the first step is to eliminate the material circumstances that bring about the need for guns. The next, a cultural revolution, dropping down the love for guns. The third, industrialization of the rural regions. The fourth, actively hunting down the producers of guns.

[Soviet Tankistan]

It seeks to remove weaponry from private posession.

See, we disagree on whether this is bad. I do not believe it to be.

Banning something does not make it disappear. Guns can be made and stolen. They would not have legitimacy, but that does not decide how lethal they are. The only way to remove guns would be to remove everything needed in making them, including arms.

And thus, as I said earlier, the first step is to eliminate the material circumstances that bring about the need for guns. The next, a cultural revolution, dropping down the love for guns. The third, industrialization of the rural regions. The fourth, actively hunting down the producers of guns.

“Hunting down the producers of guns” will result in harassing the poor and searching their basements for any tool that could theoretically construct a firearm. It won’t happen though with this method, one, two, and three are nonsense. It’s lawmaking, not answering nationstates issues and getting stats changes. Cultural revolutions are backed up with force most of the time, which means guns in the long term and violence. You can’t just say “you have money, be happy and get your hands off of those guns!”

[Telconi]

It seeks to remove weaponry from private posession.

See, we disagree on whether this is bad. I do not believe it to be.

Banning something does not make it disappear. Guns can be made and stolen. They would not have legitimacy, but that does not decide how lethal they are. The only way to remove guns would be to remove everything needed in making them, including arms.

And thus, as I said earlier, the first step is to eliminate the material circumstances that bring about the need for guns. The next, a cultural revolution, dropping down the love for guns. The third, industrialization of the rural regions. The fourth, actively hunting down the producers of guns.

-Shrug- that was pretty obvious from the start.

[Kowani]

See, we disagree on whether this is bad. I do not believe it to be.


And thus, as I said earlier, the first step is to eliminate the material circumstances that bring about the need for guns. The next, a cultural revolution, dropping down the love for guns. The third, industrialization of the rural regions. The fourth, actively hunting down the producers of guns.

“Hunting down the producers of guns” will result in harassing the poor and searching their basements for any tool that could theoretically construct a firearm.

Surprisingly enough, when the first step is eliminating the poor, you tend to have less need for a gun.

It won’t happen though with this method, one, two, and three are nonsense.

Thank you for explaining why they are nonsense.

Cultural revolutions are backed up with force most of the time, which means guns in the long term and violence.

Not really, no.

You can’t just say “you have money, be happy and get your hands off of those guns!”

Eh, the other solution was mass displacement in order to break up gun heavy cultures.

[Soviet Tankistan]

“Hunting down the producers of guns” will result in harassing the poor and searching their basements for any tool that could theoretically construct a firearm.

Surprisingly enough, when the first step is eliminating the poor, you tend to have less need for a gun.

It won’t happen though with this method, one, two, and three are nonsense.

Thank you for explaining why they are nonsense.

Cultural revolutions are backed up with force most of the time, which means guns in the long term and violence.

Not really, no.

You can’t just say “you have money, be happy and get your hands off of those guns!”

Eh, the other solution was mass displacement in order to break up gun heavy cultures.

I knew you were willing to ignore basic human rights, but not many admit they wish to eliminate the poor. That is not productive, logical, or morally right. I suppose it is more like the Jews thinking they were to useful for Hitler to kill them. They were useful, but Hitler was crazy.

[Kowani]

Surprisingly enough, when the first step is eliminating the poor, you tend to have less need for a gun.

Thank you for explaining why they are nonsense.
Not really, no.

Eh, the other solution was mass displacement in order to break up gun heavy cultures.

I knew you were willing to ignore basic human rights, but not many admit they wish to eliminate the poor. That is not productive, logical, or morally right. I suppose it is more like the Jews thinking they were to useful for Hitler to kill them. They were useful, but Hitler was crazy.

When I say eliminate the poor, I thought it was obvious that was by eliminating poverty. Not genocide. That’s unproductive.

[Telconi]

I knew you were willing to ignore basic human rights, but not many admit they wish to eliminate the poor. That is not productive, logical, or morally right. I suppose it is more like the Jews thinking they were to useful for Hitler to kill them. They were useful, but Hitler was crazy.

When I say eliminate the poor, I thought it was obvious that was by eliminating poverty. Not genocide. That’s unproductive.

Why don't we eliminate poverty and still have guns?

[Kowani]

When I say eliminate the poor, I thought it was obvious that was by eliminating poverty. Not genocide. That’s unproductive.

Why don't we eliminate poverty and still have guns?

Guns make violence more effective, and resistance to change more effective.

[Telconi]

Why don't we eliminate poverty and still have guns?

Guns make violence more effective, and resistance to change more effective.

You're right!

[Kowani]

Guns make violence more effective, and resistance to change more effective.

You're right!

Those things are unproductive, and violence with guns by the mass populace tends to be sporadic and undirected. Not exactly desirable in a working society.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Why don't we eliminate poverty and still have guns?

Guns make violence more effective, and resistance to change more effective.

Does their legality change their efficiency? I know many guns that are designed to be made with common tools and people don’t work as reliably, but some do very well. Scratch that, guns can always be bought.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Good luck having an unarmed revolution.

[Immutable Law]

Guns are important to revolution and leftists as a whole. Many authoritarian socialists like guns and own them. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be deregulated. I'm saying that authoritarian socialists should own guns and allow them. What do you think? Should they be pro guns.

Guns are important during the revolution, but after, they become a problem.
Historically, the inalienable right of self-protection is among the first political victims of an authoritarian regime.
After the honeymoon is over, and the proletariat realize that their lot will not improve, and indeed may suffer more under their new overlords, an armed proletariat would naturally be difficult to police and suppress.

So yes, and no.
For the revolutionary and subsequent party machine, yes.
For the serfs, not so much.

[Telconi]

You're right!

Those things are unproductive, and violence with guns by the mass populace tends to be sporadic and undirected. Not exactly desirable in a working society.

Violations of integral rights are undesirable in a working society.

[Kowani]

Those things are unproductive, and violence with guns by the mass populace tends to be sporadic and undirected. Not exactly desirable in a working society.

Violations of integral rights are undesirable in a working society.

Nah. For one thing, Rights are just Privileges granted to the individual by the State and the Society in which they live. Beyond that, no. “Rights” have no inherent value save the material good they provide.

[Chernoslavia]

Violations of integral rights are undesirable in a working society.

Nah. For one thing, Rights are just Privileges granted to the individual by the State and the Society in which they live. Beyond that, no. “Rights” have no inherent value save the material good they provide.

Hahahaha...no.

[Kowani]

Nah. For one thing, Rights are just Privileges granted to the individual by the State and the Society in which they live. Beyond that, no. “Rights” have no inherent value save the material good they provide.

Hahahaha...no.

You have a right to Free Speech because you live in America.
A North Korean does not have said right.

Therefore, Rights are not universal, but dependent upon the society in which the individual exists.