Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

They're what the people are willing to fight for. Plenty of regimes stoppled on rights only to be overthrown because of it.

[Kowani]

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.

They're what the people are willing to fight for. Plenty of regimes stoppled on rights only to be overthrown because of it.

Yes, and those individuals built a new society which recognized those rights. Others have undergone regressions, and the rights disappeared. Case in point, Erdogan’s Turkey. It is the society that determines what rights are, naught else.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Nicolae Ceaușescu deserved to die for what he did to protesters in Romania, and the people gave him that justice. I'm sure this statement will anger the soviet apologists in this thread.

[Chernoslavia]

Nicolae Ceaușescu deserved to die for what he did to protesters in Romania, and the people gave him that justice. I'm sure this statement will anger the soviet apologists in this thread.

Fo-shizle

[Ors Might]

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.

I mean, that’s true, but the presence of rights is ultimately preferable to the opposite. The ability to do something is generally better than the inability to do something.

For example, no stare will ever be able to guarantee my safety, whether it be from it or from another aggressor. Therefore it is within my best interest to strengthen my ability to protect myself and to oppose any attempts to turn that ability into an inability. You haven’t provided a good argument as to why I as an individual should support the intentional weakening of my own capabilities.

[Kowani]

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.

I mean, that’s true, but the presence of rights is ultimately preferable to the opposite. The ability to do something is generally better than the inability to do something.

For example, no stare will ever be able to guarantee my safety, whether it be from it or from another aggressor. Therefore it is within my best interest to strengthen my ability to protect myself and to oppose any attempts to turn that ability into an inability. You haven’t provided a good argument as to why I as an individual should support the intentional weakening of my own capabilities.

Ah, yes. I don’t know where you live, so I can’t make a comment about crime rates, but gang wars and the cycle of violence are a pretty good reason why sacrificing some ability to protect oneself in the interest of general social stability is in one’s interest.

[Grinning Dragon]

I mean, that’s true, but the presence of rights is ultimately preferable to the opposite. The ability to do something is generally better than the inability to do something.

For example, no stare will ever be able to guarantee my safety, whether it be from it or from another aggressor. Therefore it is within my best interest to strengthen my ability to protect myself and to oppose any attempts to turn that ability into an inability. You haven’t provided a good argument as to why I as an individual should support the intentional weakening of my own capabilities.

Ah, yes. I don’t know where you live, so I can’t make a comment about crime rates, but gang wars and the cycle of violence are a pretty good reason why sacrificing some ability to protect oneself in the interest of general social stability is in one’s interest.

How do you expect to achieve this social stability by removing the means and tools to aid in one's self preservation? Or is this just another exercise of the weak must submit to the strong/dog eat dog world and calling it a peaceful utopia?
Trading essential liberties for temporary safety gains you neither.

[Ors Might]

I mean, that’s true, but the presence of rights is ultimately preferable to the opposite. The ability to do something is generally better than the inability to do something.

For example, no stare will ever be able to guarantee my safety, whether it be from it or from another aggressor. Therefore it is within my best interest to strengthen my ability to protect myself and to oppose any attempts to turn that ability into an inability. You haven’t provided a good argument as to why I as an individual should support the intentional weakening of my own capabilities.

Ah, yes. I don’t know where you live, so I can’t make a comment about crime rates, but gang wars and the cycle of violence are a pretty good reason why sacrificing some ability to protect oneself in the interest of general social stability is in one’s interest.

Not really. I mean, getting rid of guns altogether would completely eliminate gun violence and reduce gang violence but that wouldn’t make me any safer. I am a small and fairly weak guy. There are some parts of the state I live in where I just can’t go into. Gun ownership levels the playing field in my case. Meaning that, even when we ignore matters of ideology, I have a vested interest in keeping my ability to own and use firearms. Even if we did reduce the likelihood of me needing to use my firearm, that doesn’t change the fact that if I do run into a situation where I would have to defend myself, a firearm would be my best chance of survival.

[Kowani]

Ah, yes. I don’t know where you live, so I can’t make a comment about crime rates, but gang wars and the cycle of violence are a pretty good reason why sacrificing some ability to protect oneself in the interest of general social stability is in one’s interest.

How do you expect to achieve this social stability by removing the means and tools to aid in one's self preservation? Or is this just another exercise of the weak must submit to the strong/dog eat dog world and calling it a peaceful utopia?
Trading essential liberties for temporary safety gains you neither.

The majority of the population gets along well without requiring guns. One’s self preservation is, in the majority of the country, not anywhere close to as large an issue as is believed.

Ah, yes. I don’t know where you live, so I can’t make a comment about crime rates, but gang wars and the cycle of violence are a pretty good reason why sacrificing some ability to protect oneself in the interest of general social stability is in one’s interest.

Not really. I mean, getting rid of guns altogether would completely eliminate gun violence and reduce gang violence but that wouldn’t make me any safer. I am a small and fairly weak guy. There are some parts of the state I live in where I just can’t go into. Gun ownership levels the playing field in my case. Meaning that, even when we ignore matters of ideology, I have a vested interest in keeping my ability to own and use firearms. Even if we did reduce the likelihood of me needing to use my firearm, that doesn’t change the fact that if I do run into a situation where I would have to defend myself, a firearm would be my best chance of survival.

…What I’m hearing is that you oppose losing your ability to defend yourself even though the method of doing so would far reduce your necessity to do so, but the guarantee of success wouldn’t drop as much as you believe it would.
Nevertheless, as I said in the Gun Control Thread the other day, that’s not the only solution. Far more critical is fighting poverty and drug trafficking.

[Ors Might]

How do you expect to achieve this social stability by removing the means and tools to aid in one's self preservation? Or is this just another exercise of the weak must submit to the strong/dog eat dog world and calling it a peaceful utopia?
Trading essential liberties for temporary safety gains you neither.

The majority of the population gets along well without requiring guns. One’s self preservation is, in the majority of the country, not anywhere close to as large an issue as is believed.

Not really. I mean, getting rid of guns altogether would completely eliminate gun violence and reduce gang violence but that wouldn’t make me any safer. I am a small and fairly weak guy. There are some parts of the state I live in where I just can’t go into. Gun ownership levels the playing field in my case. Meaning that, even when we ignore matters of ideology, I have a vested interest in keeping my ability to own and use firearms. Even if we did reduce the likelihood of me needing to use my firearm, that doesn’t change the fact that if I do run into a situation where I would have to defend myself, a firearm would be my best chance of survival.

…What I’m hearing is that you oppose losing your ability to defend yourself even though the method of doing so would far reduce your necessity to do so, but the guarantee of success wouldn’t drop as much as you believe it would.
Nevertheless, as I said in the Gun Control Thread the other day, that’s not the only solution. Far more critical is fighting poverty and drug trafficking.

I would rather keep my ability to defend myself and reduce the likelihood of me needing to use it. That would most effectively guarantee my safety.

[Grinning Dragon]

How do you expect to achieve this social stability by removing the means and tools to aid in one's self preservation? Or is this just another exercise of the weak must submit to the strong/dog eat dog world and calling it a peaceful utopia?
Trading essential liberties for temporary safety gains you neither.

The majority of the population gets along well without requiring guns. One’s self preservation is, in the majority of the country, not anywhere close to as large an issue as is believed.

Am I reading this correctly, that ones self preservation isn't a large issue? Save for a few crazies, yes self preservation is a large issue for a majority of people when faced with bodily harm up to including death. The ability to preserve ones life from bodily harm is paramount and is a natural instinct.

[Kowani]

The majority of the population gets along well without requiring guns. One’s self preservation is, in the majority of the country, not anywhere close to as large an issue as is believed.


…What I’m hearing is that you oppose losing your ability to defend yourself even though the method of doing so would far reduce your necessity to do so, but the guarantee of success wouldn’t drop as much as you believe it would.
Nevertheless, as I said in the Gun Control Thread the other day, that’s not the only solution. Far more critical is fighting poverty and drug trafficking.

I would rather keep my ability to defend myself and reduce the likelihood of me needing to use it. That would most effectively guarantee my safety.

The two things are diametrically opposed.

[Ors Might]

I would rather keep my ability to defend myself and reduce the likelihood of me needing to use it. That would most effectively guarantee my safety.

The two things are diametrically opposed.

Only if one can prove that the driving factor of people using x to commit violence is ownership of x. Violence is a much more complicated phenomenon than that. Regardless, even if you can remove guns out of the equation completely and reduce many of the factors leading people to commit violence, that doesn’t meaningfully change the risk I’d face if I were to be in a violent situation.

[Kowani]

The two things are diametrically opposed.

Only if one can prove that the driving factor of people using x to commit violence is ownership of x. Violence is a much more complicated phenomenon than that. Regardless, even if you can remove guns out of the equation completely and reduce many of the factors leading people to commit violence, that doesn’t meaningfully change the risk I’d face if I were to be in a violent situation.

Yes. I’m aware of that. That’s why I recommended earlier to fight poverty and drug trafficking first, because those are much bigger causes of violence than mere possession of guns.

However, it does substantially reduce the risk that you will be in a violent situation-and if the risk is unchanged, as you said, then you end up winning.

[Ors Might]

Only if one can prove that the driving factor of people using x to commit violence is ownership of x. Violence is a much more complicated phenomenon than that. Regardless, even if you can remove guns out of the equation completely and reduce many of the factors leading people to commit violence, that doesn’t meaningfully change the risk I’d face if I were to be in a violent situation.

Yes. I’m aware of that. That’s why I recommended earlier to fight poverty and drug trafficking first, because those are much bigger causes of violence than mere possession of guns.

However, it does substantially reduce the risk that you will be in a violent situation-and if the risk is unchanged, as you said, then you end up winning.

On that we’re agreed.

Depends on how you look at it. The risk of me entering a violent situation might be reduced but the harm that a violent situation would likely inflict upon me increases. A physically imposing fellow with a knife stands a far greater chance of harming unarmed five foot four me than the reverse. Hence my self-interest in owning a gun.

[Kowani]

Yes. I’m aware of that. That’s why I recommended earlier to fight poverty and drug trafficking first, because those are much bigger causes of violence than mere possession of guns.

However, it does substantially reduce the risk that you will be in a violent situation-and if the risk is unchanged, as you said, then you end up winning.

On that we’re agreed.

Depends on how you look at it. The risk of me entering a violent situation might be reduced but the harm that a violent situation would likely inflict upon me increases. A physically imposing fellow with a knife stands a far greater chance of harming unarmed five foot four me than the reverse. Hence my self-interest in owning a gun.

If both of you have guns and he gets the drop on you, the disadvantage you have isn’t exactly negligible, now is it?

[Ors Might]

On that we’re agreed.

Depends on how you look at it. The risk of me entering a violent situation might be reduced but the harm that a violent situation would likely inflict upon me increases. A physically imposing fellow with a knife stands a far greater chance of harming unarmed five foot four me than the reverse. Hence my self-interest in owning a gun.

If both of you have guns and he gets the drop on you, the disadvantage you have isn’t exactly negligible, now is it?

If both of us don’t have guns and he gets the drop on me, I’m still in all likelihood utterly fucked. The degree in difference is comparable to that of a serious heart attack in a ninety yesr old man and an aneurysm. One might technically have better survival rates but that doesn’t really mean much when you’re in that situation, does it?

[Kowani]

If both of you have guns and he gets the drop on you, the disadvantage you have isn’t exactly negligible, now is it?

If both of us don’t have guns and he gets the drop on me, I’m still in all likelihood utterly fucked. The degree in difference is comparable to that of a serious heart attack in a ninety yesr old man and an aneurysm. One might technically have better survival rates but that doesn’t really mean much when you’re in that situation, does it?

…So you’re willing to increase your likelihood of getting fucked because why? It might not mean much while you’re in that situation, but on the whole, less people, including yourself would be in that situation.

[Chernoslavia]

If both of us don’t have guns and he gets the drop on me, I’m still in all likelihood utterly fucked. The degree in difference is comparable to that of a serious heart attack in a ninety yesr old man and an aneurysm. One might technically have better survival rates but that doesn’t really mean much when you’re in that situation, does it?

…So you’re willing to increase your likelihood of getting fucked because why? It might not mean much while you’re in that situation, but on the whole, less people, including yourself would be in that situation.

Weren't you pro gun?

[Kowani]

…So you’re willing to increase your likelihood of getting fucked because why? It might not mean much while you’re in that situation, but on the whole, less people, including yourself would be in that situation.

Weren't you pro gun?

…Not particularly? It’s not a priority by any means, and the reality is that completely eradicating guns (which is part of my ideal world) is somewhere between impossible and mutually assured destruction.

Reducing poverty and drug trafficking are far better ways of curbing gun violence than confiscation and banning.

[Chernoslavia]

Weren't you pro gun?

Reducing poverty and drug trafficking are far better ways of curbing gun violence than confiscation and banning.

Well at least we can agree on something.

[Kowani]

Reducing poverty and drug trafficking are far better ways of curbing gun violence than confiscation and banning.

Well at least we can agree on something.

I am pragmatic in all things.

[Nova Cyberia]

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.

>industrialization of rural regions

kek

Out of this entire shitty list that's the funniest one.

You do realize having agricultural areas isn't a bad thing, right?

Also, just out of curiosity what "material circumstances" are you talking about?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Can we get back to guns?

[Ors Might]

If both of us don’t have guns and he gets the drop on me, I’m still in all likelihood utterly fucked. The degree in difference is comparable to that of a serious heart attack in a ninety yesr old man and an aneurysm. One might technically have better survival rates but that doesn’t really mean much when you’re in that situation, does it?

…So you’re willing to increase your likelihood of getting fucked because why? It might not mean much while you’re in that situation, but on the whole, less people, including yourself would be in that situation.

Alright, let me try explaining this in a different way since I think this one’s on me. Let’s say for the sake of a hypothetical that someone figures out how to significantly reduce house fires by removing fire extinguishers in homes along with a few other things. They can’t reduce the chance that your house will catch fire to zero, however. Say, 10000:1 odds. Now, they can let you keep your fire extinguisher while still doing the other things. This changes it to 1000:1 odds.

I want to reduce the odds of me dealing with a house fire while maintaining my ability to put it out.