Punks and Guns


PDA

View Full Version : Punks and Guns


punkalaskan
07-31-2008, 10:19 PM
What are your ideas on firearms?

for or against them?

me personally say everyone should have the right to own one if they choose. I think its a good stress reliever to just go to the range and fire off a few rounds.




and before you start whining that guns kill people keep in mind that people kill people and a firearm is one of many tools that they can choose to use.....

athlete1
07-31-2008, 10:26 PM
and plus you should read the book "more guns equals less crime". proves with solid facts that guns lower crime. i personally love them. very fun for hunting and sport.

Iluvpowerchords
07-31-2008, 10:27 PM
Fighting was way sweeter when it involved hand to hand weapon combat.

If my epee had actual killing abilities I would carry it around with me and challenge people to duels.

Which should still be legal dammit.

If two consenting adults want to fight to the death I say why not? :)

Joe-Fish
07-31-2008, 10:28 PM
Pros: Great for hunting and defense.
Cons: Used by the wrong people a lot of times and for the wrong reasons.

RockThe40oz
07-31-2008, 10:28 PM
When I get older and have more money, I may own a gun for home protection, but not unless I take handgun training.

When I think of the second amendment, it's in place so that people can use the guns in a revolt against the government, but any such revolt is completely illegal and you'd be overpowered quickly and killed either on site or in a prison facility.... so much for freedom... now it's just something that conservatives like to throw around to justify enjoying the power behind a gun.

In all, I'm not really for the ban of any type of gun, whether a handgun or assault rifle, because they can be very vital to your own personal safety... but I am for stricter background checks (including at gun shows), and for longer waiting periods and mandatory safety classes.

selibucaz
07-31-2008, 10:30 PM
i beleve firearms are fine, just as long as your not using them to argue over something stupid street gangs and other bull **** is dumb, but like war i think its necessary because you cant just go into war without firearms. Killing game is good too, it regulates the population of the animals. I personly dont want to try to hunt tho. Target shooting stuff is good. O, its not the gun that kills usually, its the bullet lmao.

lolmnt
07-31-2008, 10:35 PM
Fighting was way sweeter when it involved hand to hand weapon combat.

If my epee had actual killing abilities I would carry it around with me and challenge people to duels.

Which should still be legal dammit.

If two consenting adults want to fight to the death I say why not? :)It's also quite noble.

I have an opinion on gun control, but I'm too lazy to type out.

Iluvpowerchords
07-31-2008, 10:37 PM
Fuck yeah it's noble.

Then Fencing would be considered a martial art.

axeslash
07-31-2008, 10:53 PM
I own guns. I plan on getting a concealed carry permit when I'm 21.

Basically, here's how it goes. Scary world. Scary people. I don't know about those fancy countries where guns are illegal, but all I know is I don't want to be left without guns when the secret police come knocking down my door.

Iluvpowerchords
07-31-2008, 10:56 PM
When they kick out yer front door
how you gonna come?
With you hands on your head
or on the trigger of yer gun?

You had to see that coming.

axeslash
07-31-2008, 11:01 PM
Mostly.

blackflag49
07-31-2008, 11:03 PM
When I get older and have more money, I may own a gun for home protection, but not unless I take handgun training.

When I think of the second amendment, it's in place so that people can use the guns in a revolt against the government, but any such revolt is completely illegal and you'd be overpowered quickly and killed either on site or in a prison facility.... so much for freedom... now it's just something that conservatives like to throw around to justify enjoying the power behind a gun.

In all, I'm not really for the ban of any type of gun, whether a handgun or assault rifle, because they can be very vital to your own personal safety... but I am for stricter background checks (including at gun shows), and for longer waiting periods and mandatory safety classes.I can sort of understand handguns, but assault rifles? What neighborhood do you live in...

I can't say I buy that more guns equals less crime argument. A lot of people had guns in the Wild West, and it didn't seem like an exactly peaceful era. Maybe background checks and whatnot could change that, but I'd rather get all the guns off the streets. Including all the illegal imports. Invest some more money in our education system, if ya want to reduce crime...

Plus with guns there's gonna be guys like this, who are just compensating for... stuff.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/052p8Ib2aqgLp/610x.jpg

axeslash
07-31-2008, 11:05 PM
I don't know if you guys have ever fired a Kalashnikov before but those things are fun.

RockThe40oz
07-31-2008, 11:28 PM
blackflag, if you think you can seriously get rid of all the smuggled and stolen guns on the street, you're living in fantasy land. It's not like we just let them hang out there as it is.

I personally wouldn't need an assault rifle, but there are already regulations that require those kinds of weapons to be locked in a cabinet, and you can technically already own a fully-auto assault rifle, but it's extremely expensive and you have to renew the license all the time. I think it should stay that way.

original=punk
07-31-2008, 11:37 PM
me personally say everyone should have the right to own one if they choose. I think its a good stress reliever to just go to the range and fire off a few rounds.

That's your arguement, it relieves stress?
Take up smoking, PLAY GUITAR, take up boxing, or just plain working out, are ten times better ways to relieve stress.

And axeslash, it wouldn't be such a scary world if everybody didn't have guns. I live in Canada. We have major background checks and the like. Heavy gun control. Look at this chart.


Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

Germany isn't even o9n there, because, to my knowledge, nobodoy can have them there, right?

lolmnt
07-31-2008, 11:44 PM
blackflag, if you think you can seriously get rid of all the smuggled and stolen guns on the street, you're living in fantasy land. It's not like we just let them hang out there as it is.

I personally wouldn't need an assault rifle, but there are already regulations that require those kinds of weapons to be locked in a cabinet, and you can technically already own a fully-auto assault rifle, but it's extremely expensive and you have to renew the license all the time. I think it should stay that way.Of course you'll never be able to get rid of all the guns. What I think should happen is that it should be harder to buy guns. A background check won't kill you, and if you really want the gun you should be able to be patient enough for a waiting period. I also think that people should have to register their guns with the police department. I don't think guns are wrong to own (I'd prefer a world without them), but I think only people who are responsible enough to own them should be able to.

And I can't think a situation when anybody would ever need an assault rifle.

gopherthegreat
07-31-2008, 11:49 PM
And I can't think a situation when anybody would ever need an assault rifle.
If they plan on killing people. Duh.

axeslash
07-31-2008, 11:55 PM
Whatever O=P.

I have my guns, and you don't.

;D

original=punk
08-01-2008, 12:02 AM
Whatever O=P.

I have my guns, and you don't.

;D

I'm quite sure your beloved hardcore bands don't share your sentiments.

neidnarb11890
08-01-2008, 12:03 AM
I agree with Collin on the whole gun control thing.
Personally, I have no desire to own/use a gun.
That is all.

opivy21
08-01-2008, 12:03 AM
I don't like guns, and have no interest in owning one myself.

Zero Substance
08-01-2008, 12:06 AM
^same, although i concede that occasional target shooting is mildly amusing. aside from that i'm not a fan, tho

lolmnt
08-01-2008, 12:08 AM
I own guns. A couple are my dad's and the rest were passed down from my great grandfather. They haven't been shot in a long time.

Iluvpowerchords
08-01-2008, 12:08 AM
Yeah, I'll stick to Duck Hunt and Point Blank 2.

opivy21
08-01-2008, 12:11 AM
I shot skeet (haha, skeet) once at Boy Scout camp in middle school. I hit four out of five once. I don't think it was especially fun.

As Brendan points out, however, gun violence in tv, movies, and video games, is the best thing predating sliced bread.

blackflag49
08-01-2008, 12:13 AM
blackflag, if you think you can seriously get rid of all the smuggled and stolen guns on the street, you're living in fantasy land. It's not like we just let them hang out there as it is.Of course we couldn't get all of them. But if most illegally owned guns start out as legal purchases, diverted into illegal markets by traffickers that steal/buy them, and sell them to felons/underage kids/etc, it'd make sense that cutting down on those legal purchases would have a corresponding effect on the number of illegal guns on the street.

And we could put more effort into knowing what's coming through our borders.

Leonheart
08-01-2008, 12:16 AM
In my ideal word, nobody would have guns.

But in the world as it is now, I think we should have access to them as long as they're regulated.

drossboot
08-01-2008, 12:20 AM
My dad and i have started a weekly ritual of going down to the target range and firing a few hundred rounds. I'm really starting to get into it. I recently bought a new pistol, and went through all the paperwork and got my safety license, and I'm counting down the days until my 10 day waiting period is over. I have no problem with doing all of that. I'm a safe and responsible gun owner. I think everyone should have the right to own a gun, but there should be a screening process for people buying guns, and very harsh punishments for abusing that right. Just because it's legal to own a gun, it doesn't mean they should be just handing them out. It's all about common sense and personal accountability for your actions.

CowsWithGuns
08-01-2008, 12:24 AM
Background checks on a person's mental health should be made. Many an act of gun violence has been committed by people with histories of paranoid delusions, severe depression, schizophrenia, etc. I've heard too many stories of people who were repeatedly committed to psychiatric hospitals going out, buying a gun and killing themselves or a person or persons because of reasons directly related to their illness. These people almost always get their guns legally.

Well put, drossboot.

RockThe40oz
08-01-2008, 12:24 AM
Of course you'll never be able to get rid of all the guns. What I think should happen is that it should be harder to buy guns. A background check won't kill you, and if you really want the gun you should be able to be patient enough for a waiting period. I also think that people should have to register their guns with the police department. I don't think guns are wrong to own (I'd prefer a world without them), but I think only people who are responsible enough to own them should be able to.

And I can't think a situation when anybody would ever need an assault rifle.

If you read my post at all, you'd see that I am for strict background checks...as well as safety classes, meaning more responsibility... so I don't know why you quoted me to say that...

Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle, but nobody NEEDS a handgun.. I just don't see the reason to ban them when they're already pretty much unaffordable and high regulated.

CWG: They already do include mental health in background checks... unfortunately not all things are reported as they should... and it's not included if they're not considered a danger to others.

Adarsh
08-01-2008, 01:33 AM
Ever seen 'Bowling for Columbine'? There's a reason the US has the highest amount of gun-crime in the world.

Guns shouldn't even be produced, let alone owned.

yeahyeah
08-01-2008, 01:41 AM
If I were rich I'd buy as many guns as I could, melt them down, and build one billion bicycles

werty22
08-01-2008, 02:14 AM
I'm not exactly "for guns," but I don't think they should be illegalized. Criminals would be able to get their hands on them whether they were legal or not. Then law-abiding citizens would be at a disadvantage.

I agree that they should be more difficult to buy and that assault rifles and other military weapons shouldn't be legal for civilians.

whyvern
08-01-2008, 04:07 AM
I think we should be able to have guns so we can take the bastards out oursevles and they don't overpower us.

I used to not until I started learning about power and control and while I hate violence and war as much as everyone else, if this system is going to threaten us with violent actions like police occupations of our cities and the military and prison industrial-complexes then we need some kind of strong counterweight and guns should be used as a last resort.

SuperBlob
08-01-2008, 04:13 AM
All guns should be destroyed. Wars should be fought with swords.

And only swords.

That should be put in the Geneva Convention or something

BrianApocalypse
08-01-2008, 05:27 AM
I wouldn't want to get rid of MY firearm :D

sargasm
08-01-2008, 05:40 AM
When the fucking revolution comes, I'm not going to be disarmed. I want to have as much power as the cops/military/government does. I hope that eventually we can live in a world without guns, but until then, as long as the cops and the government have guns, I want to have the power to fight them. In our situation, that means guns.

I'd also like to commend the threadstarter on bringing up a very interesting topic.

RockThe40oz
08-01-2008, 07:41 AM
Ever seen 'Bowling for Columbine'? There's a reason the US has the highest amount of gun-crime in the world.

Guns shouldn't even be produced, let alone owned.

Bowling for columbine was a disgusting piece of propaganda using a tragedy to push a political agenda.

RizzoWashburn
08-01-2008, 09:02 AM
I wouldn't want to get rid of MY firearm :D
:golfclap:

kaptink
08-01-2008, 09:09 AM
Im all for the banning of guns and harsher prison sentences for people in possesion of them. I don't want to live in a world where theres no mutual trust between people where they think that everyone around them could potentially be carrying or own a gun.

Illegal gun smuggling will happen yes and it will continue to happen all over the world and probably get worse. I believe that most people wont have the connections or nerves to hunt down an illegal firearm though. Would the two kids from columbine have known where to get a couple of shotguns illegaly? The shooter in the Dunblane killings was a scout-master of all things, can you imagine him tracking down someone willing to sell him a gun in some seedy city?

whyvern
08-01-2008, 09:15 AM
^ so you want the Police State to be able to force you to do things?

When the time comes and they tell you that if you don't agree with us ya gotta get in these trains, yer not gonna fight back?

**** that. People are stronger than there governments if they want to be. If they let governments take power from them through force, political spectacle and mass consumerism then they're only hampering their power to control their own lives and take their own fates outta the hands of the government's.

SuperBlob
08-01-2008, 09:35 AM
I want to have as much power as the cops/military/government does.
I believe in England that means we get a stick to hit people with? :p:

axeslash
08-01-2008, 09:46 AM
I'm quite sure your beloved hardcore bands don't share your sentiments.C'mon Jawn. We all know I'm no Casual Tees punk. I don't do what I do because my music compels me.When the fucking revolution comes, I'm not going to be disarmed. I want to have as much power as the cops/military/government does. I hope that eventually we can live in a world without guns, but until then, as long as the cops and the government have guns, I want to have the power to fight them. In our situation, that means guns.That's why I only have my .22 registered in my name. The government only knows about my ****ty little .22 which I wouldn't be as reluctant to give away as my .270And I can't think a situation when anybody would ever need an assault rifle.Kalashnikov's are in my opinion one of the best assault riles ever made. They aren't made like American guns to be super-accurate and super-expensive.

They were made so you could fire those things forever without having to worry about it breaking or having to clean it. They are perfect for fighting off a rogue government gone mad with power. They are the people's weapons.

BrianApocalypse
08-01-2008, 09:50 AM
I believe in England that means we get a stick to hit people with? :p:

When the revolution comes in Britain, women will get rolling pins, as characterised by classic british stereotype cartoon Andy Capp.

The men just throw insults like "Good day Reginald, you cur!".

In Scotland, the most powerful weapon is "Yoer muthor's porrage stenks lake shet!"

In Wales, the most powerful insult is "Woman shagger!"

axeslash
08-01-2008, 09:55 AM
In Wales, the most powerful insult is "Woman shagger!"My ex-girlfriend was of Welsh descent.

Thank you Brian, you just made my day.

BrianApocalypse
08-01-2008, 10:03 AM
You know me, axe.

They don't call me The Brian Man for nothing y'know. I even have my own theme tune.

Who can rape people?
Rape 'em in the eye?
Rape 'em in the arse and make a chocolate cream pie!

The Brian man can.
The Brian man caaan.
The Brian man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good.
And the world tastes good, 'cause the Brian man thinks it shoooooouuuld!

Swap-Meet
08-01-2008, 10:11 AM
We don't need self defence in Canada...We're hippies.

*hides from die hard Casualties fans*

axeslash
08-01-2008, 10:17 AM
Quit being a Canada fanboy. Seriously, stop that crap.

Swap-Meet
08-01-2008, 10:20 AM
Uhhhh....No?

Stop attempting to e-bully people you ****ing nerd

axeslash
08-01-2008, 10:22 AM
E-bully? Oh noes, you better call the cyber-crime hotline and tell them someone is being mean to you ON THE INTERNET.

And please refrain from calling me a nerd. It makes you sound like... well... a nerd.

lavazza
08-01-2008, 10:35 AM
Iīm too lazy to read the whole thread before, just my opinion. Iīm absolutely pro gun control, because facts are on my side. The USA is such a perfect example for this. They have much more death through guns than France or Germany, even if you keep in mind that the USA has much more inhabitants itīs a lot more. People are just not intelligent and unemotinal as Vulcans, so the act emotional when they get excited and when they have a gun it gets worse as if they had no gun.
You argument with the police control etc. is stupid, since if the government wants you to be dead it can kill you, also if you have an Uzi, they have a much better technology.
Imagine the people in Burma had guns during their protests, we would have another civil war as in Darfur and in between their would stand the common people, starving. Guns lead to nothing, if youīre pro disarment I cannot understand why youīre not pro gun control.

RiotRiotUpstart
08-01-2008, 11:51 AM
I'm not interested in owning guns, but if people want to have guns, I say let them. It's not like outlawing guns would keep them out of criminal's hands, as most of them get their firearms illegally as it is.

FuzzyBear
08-01-2008, 11:56 AM
Then Fencing would be considered a martial art.

im pretty sure it already is

"Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat one or more people physically and to defend oneself or others from physical threat."


also the argument that you should have guns so you could potentially fight the government is retarded

axeslash
08-01-2008, 12:08 PM
also the argument that you should have guns so you could potentially fight the government is retardedGood point. As an American, we all know having guns to fight an oppressive government is silly.

original=punk
08-01-2008, 12:34 PM
We don't need self defence in Canada...We're hippies.

*hides from die hard Casualties fans*
WE KNOW YOU LIVE IN CANADA.

So do I, it doesn't make you special, we're not that wholly different from the states, as much as your puny f*ckign brain would like to think so.


Sargasm and Whyvern make good points, but violence literally scares the **** out of me, so I don't believe that when the revolution comes I'll be shooting anyone unless I get attacked and have to defend myself.

ss311
08-01-2008, 12:37 PM
also the argument that you should have guns so you could potentially fight the government is retarded

How profound. :p:

FuzzyBear
08-01-2008, 12:45 PM
Good point. As an American, we all know having guns to fight an oppressive government is silly.

ok

so youve got some guns against this oppressive government

but if they really wanted to get rid of you dont you think a swat team would just out gun & shoot the **** out of you,

end result, you made no difference what so ever, you got dead

axeslash
08-01-2008, 12:47 PM
ok

so youve got some guns against this oppressive government

but if they really wanted to get rid of you dont you think a swat team would just out gun & shoot the **** out of you,

end result, you made no difference what so ever, you got deadSo I guess it's just better to live subjugated and give up without a fight?

Good point, I'm glad thinkers like you have contributed so much to the world.

Zero Substance
08-01-2008, 12:49 PM
dc lifted their hand gun ban. pisses me off.

FuzzyBear
08-01-2008, 12:53 PM
So I guess it's just better to live subjugated and give up without a fight?

Good point, I'm glad thinkers like you have contributed so much to the world.

better to live to fight another day, than get holed up in your house an achieve nothing more than get your family shot like a dumb survivalist hick

axeslash
08-01-2008, 12:56 PM
better to live to fight another day, than get holed up in your house an achieve nothing more than get your family shot like a dumb survivalist hickThat's why you don't ****ing shoot at the first sign of something bad happening. I really can't explain in words how stupid you sound right now.

RiotRiotUpstart
08-01-2008, 12:58 PM
dc lifted their hand gun ban. pisses me off.

Yea totally, because there were NO guns in DC before that ban got lifted. I have no idea how DC managed to be among the top 10 cities in murder rates when handguns were illegal! They were even #1 in murder for a while in the 1980's, how the hell did that happen with handguns being illegal?

I think if the government came knocking on your door, the fact that you might have a few guns would be irrelevant. Unless people were actually united and actively fighting the government, one man with a gun isn't going to do anything.

axeslash
08-01-2008, 01:04 PM
Okay, I think we all know one man can't fight an entire army. None of us are Rambo or Jet Li or whatever.

The fact that we all have guns and the government doesn't know about a good portion of them helps me sleep at night.

Although I severely doubt the possibility of the government ever being able to mobilize the armed forces against it's own citizens or sicking the SWAT teams on us, I'm not going to be the one left behind when it happens. I obviously own guns for more than just this reason, but I honestly think that even if I hated guns I'd still own one just for my own protection.

Iluvpowerchords
08-01-2008, 01:05 PM
Of course one person isn't gonna bring down a government.

The point of 'em is so that if people do unite to overthrow their government they have more than just pitchforks to go on.

Zero Substance
08-01-2008, 01:09 PM
Yea totally, because there were NO guns in DC before that ban got lifted. I have no idea how DC managed to be among the top 10 cities in murder rates when handguns were illegal! They were even #1 in murder for a while in the 1980's, how the hell did that happen with handguns being illegal?

I think if the government came knocking on your door, the fact that you might have a few guns would be irrelevant. Unless people were actually united and actively fighting the government, one man with a gun isn't going to do anything.

i wasn't saying there were no guns in dc before the ban was lifted and i am aware of the statistics. i just don't like the fact that guns are even easier to get than before.

RiotRiotUpstart
08-01-2008, 01:12 PM
powerchords and axe: I agree with that, but the way the arguement was going it was kinda sounding like "if the government comes to get me ill shoot dem sumbitches!"

zero: My point was that the people who are committing crimes aren't getting their guns legally anyway, so the handgun ban (or the lack thereof) is pointless.

Zero Substance
08-01-2008, 01:16 PM
zero: My point was that the people who are committing crimes aren't getting their guns legally anyway, so the handgun ban (or the lack thereof) is pointless.

i realize that totally. i'm saying that before now, people would have to leave the city or have guns shipped in. now there will be more guns around the city so it follows that more guns will be making their way into the hands of criminals.

lolmnt
08-01-2008, 01:30 PM
powerchords and axe: I agree with that, but the way the arguement was going it was kinda sounding like "if the government comes to get me ill shoot dem sumbitches!"

zero: My point was that the people who are committing crimes aren't getting their guns legally anyway, so the handgun ban (or the lack thereof) is pointless.It's not pointless, it makes the guns harder for criminals to get.

prplhazed
08-01-2008, 01:58 PM
I am almost completely pro-gun control.

The argument of "criminals will get them anyway!111!!" is not even close to accurate. Sure bigtime criminals will, but casual criminals won't. The guy who's desperate for cash and holding up a convenience store wouldn't have access to guns if they weren't so easy to get.

Revolution is admirable, but honestly the US military is ginormous. your effed.
Most of those unregistered gun's people were mentioning aren't in the hands of idealistic revolutionaries, they are in the hand of criminals who would take advantage of any disturbance to make as much profit as possible.

Ok that was a little rambling but w.e

RiotRiotUpstart
08-01-2008, 02:00 PM
How? All the handgun band disallowed was legal guns, there was still a steady flow of illegal guns going around. Believe it or not, most crimes are not committed with legally registered handguns.

lolmnt
08-01-2008, 02:02 PM
How? All the handgun band disallowed was legal guns, there was still a steady flow of illegal guns going around. Believe it or not, most crimes are not committed with legally registered handguns.Of course there will be illegal guns, the government has no control over those guns.

RiotRiotUpstart
08-01-2008, 02:15 PM
The argument of "criminals will get them anyway!111!!" is not even close to accurate. Sure bigtime criminals will, but casual criminals won't. The guy who's desperate for cash and holding up a convenience store wouldn't have access to guns if they weren't so easy to get.

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/guns.htm


According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

-a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
-a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
-family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

80% of criminals obtain guns illegally. So it's not accurate to say that criminals will obtain guns regardless of the law? You obviously don't understand how readily available illegal guns are, especially in inner cities.

Cameronrobson
08-01-2008, 02:26 PM
If I had a gun I would carry it around with me and shoot people for no reason.

axeslash
08-01-2008, 02:36 PM
Anybody who says that the citizens can't rise up above a superior fighting force obviously hasn't read their history textbook.

RizzoWashburn
08-01-2008, 03:40 PM
New Hampshire is the only state in which it's legal to attempt to overthrow the government. So if we started an armed revolution against our state government and phailed, it would be perfectly okay. *-)

Leonheart
08-01-2008, 04:06 PM
If I had a gun I would carry it around with me and shoot people for no reason.

Finally something I can agree with.

lolmnt
08-01-2008, 04:09 PM
If I had a gun I would carry it around with me and shoot people for no reason.Just like video games :B

FuzzyBear
08-01-2008, 04:16 PM
If I had a gun I would carry it around with me and shoot people for no reason.


thats because you listen to public enemy, damn rap music!

whyvern
08-01-2008, 04:19 PM
ok

so youve got some guns against this oppressive government

but if they really wanted to get rid of you dont you think a swat team would just out gun & shoot the **** out of you,

end result, you made no difference what so ever, you got dead


Guns are just a tool to be used. The main goal is people coming together and rising up out of their own desire to be liberated from the system.

When I talk about the revolution in terms of violence I'm not talking about Ruby Ridge, I'm talking about Spain in 1936, or the Ukraine in the Russian Civil War.

Violence against the system is just one rather insignificant part of the revolution too, more important is changing how our society operates and how we interact with each other so there's no need for a violent revolution. Violence should only be used as a last resort. That being said again, we can expect it to be used against us (the G8 protests, FTAA in Miami, WTO in Seattle) so we have to be prepared individual to know how to deal with it.

axeslash
08-01-2008, 04:24 PM
Oh man I remember the WTO riots. I was living in Washington when it happened. That **** was all over the news for days just like 9/11.

lolmnt
08-01-2008, 04:27 PM
I heard they were making a movie about it, although it was only in a comment on a youtube video.

FuzzyBear
08-01-2008, 04:34 PM
Violence against the system is just one rather insignificant part of the revolution too, more important is changing how our society operates and how we interact with each other so there's no need for a violent revolution. Violence should only be used as a last resort. That being said again, we can expect it to be used against us (the G8 protests, FTAA in Miami, WTO in Seattle) so we have to be prepared individual to know how to deal with it.

there will never be a violent revolution in the first world

so if theres no need for violent revolution, then theres no need for guns.

saying having to be prepared for when violence is used against you brings us back to the point that any protest retaliating to violence is completely outgunned and can only end in some poor people who probably want nothing to do with it getting hurt.

blackflag49
08-01-2008, 04:43 PM
The business end of this thread's crack pipe is officially hot to the touch lol.

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

Not that I don't wish you lot the best of luck, but that's the kind of scenario I'm picturing in my head right now, so forgive me if I choose not to stockpile weapons and try to face off against the government.
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/guns.htm


According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

-a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
-a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
-family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

80% of criminals obtain guns illegally. So it's not accurate to say that criminals will obtain guns regardless of the law? You obviously don't understand how readily available illegal guns are, especially in inner cities.And where do those family, friends, street sellers, and illegal sources get them?

From "straw purchasers" that buy them wholesale (legally) and redistribute them to people that otherwise wouldn't be able to get 'em. Take away legal guns, and that's a significant drop in the number of illegal ones. Then you only have to worry about illegally manufactured firearms (I don't think that's very many) and the illegal imports coming through our ports every day.

axeslash
08-01-2008, 04:56 PM
there will never be a violent revolution in the first world

so if theres no need for violent revolution, then theres no need for guns.Can I borrow your syringe? I left mine in my other jacket.

werty22
08-01-2008, 05:57 PM
I had no idea there were so many revolutionists on UG. :rolleyes:

werty22
08-01-2008, 06:05 PM
And where do those family, friends, street sellers, and illegal sources get them?

From "straw purchasers" that buy them wholesale (legally) and redistribute them to people that otherwise wouldn't be able to get 'em. Take away legal guns, and that's a significant drop in the number of illegal ones. Then you only have to worry about illegally manufactured firearms (I don't think that's very many) and the illegal imports coming through our ports every day.
But wouldn't banning guns create more of a demand (therefore an increase in supply) for illegal guns? I don't know if it would increase the production of illegal guns enough to cancel out the effect of banning guns legally, but it's something to take into consideration.

Also, if guns were banned, guns would only belong to people who are willing to break the law to get them (IE criminals). Even if there weren't many available, the only ones that were available would be in the hands of criminals.

gopherthegreat
08-01-2008, 07:08 PM
New Hampshire is the only state in which it's legal to attempt to overthrow the government. So if we started an armed revolution against our state government and phailed, it would be perfectly okay. *-)
*-)

blackflag49
08-01-2008, 08:03 PM
But wouldn't banning guns create more of a demand (therefore an increase in supply) for illegal guns? I don't know if it would increase the production of illegal guns enough to cancel out the effect of banning guns legally, but it's something to take into consideration.

Also, if guns were banned, guns would only belong to people who are willing to break the law to get them (IE criminals). Even if there weren't many available, the only ones that were available would be in the hands of criminals.My logic is as follows: if countries like England and Australia, which have very stringent gun control laws, (in some cases outright bans, depending on the type of firearm) have significantly lower gun crime rates than we do, it only makes sense that enacting such bans (or at least much stricter gun control) here would yield the same effect. Yeah criminals could set up black market factories right here, but that's a costly business, and the product would probably be of a much cheaper quality than if it were being produced by say, Smith & Wesson....

I mean if we can try out a "noble experiment" like banning alcohol for a few years, why can't we try out something sensible like banning guns...

If it doesn't work... meh. The little man can have the gun back in his hand.

outlaw metaler
08-01-2008, 08:32 PM
if you ban guns people will just start to use somthing else like knives or chains and things will be just as violent

for instance
in a clockwork orange no one has guns they all use hand to hand weapons
see my point
in fight club the narrator talks about how to make napalm and blow up someones computer using normal house hold products
my dad was in the armys special forces part of his training was how to use regular items as weapons ( for instance a tightly rolled news paper is an effective club if used right)

axeslash
08-01-2008, 09:11 PM
if you ban guns people will just start to use somthing else like knives or chains and things will be just as violent

for instance
in a clockwork orange no one has guns they all use hand to hand weapons
see my point
in fight club the narrator talks about how to make napalm and blow up someones computer using normal house hold products
my dad was in the armys special forces part of his training was how to use regular items as weapons ( for instance a tightly rolled news paper is an effective club if used right)Learning to use a tightly rolled newspaper as a weapon? You know, I always thought my dad made jokes about the Army because that's what they do, but I'm starting to see where he's coming from. And where my Grandpa is coming from when he makes fun of those guys.

Iluvpowerchords
08-01-2008, 09:16 PM
It's Called A Millwall Brick.

It was popular with Football (soccer) hooligans.

It makes me lol when I think about it.

blackflag49
08-01-2008, 09:19 PM
Knives, chains, and rolled-up newspapers are still a lot easier to deal with than a friggin' gun.

And that recipe in Fight Club wasn't real, btw.

Iluvpowerchords
08-01-2008, 09:21 PM
Personally I'm a fan of a good ol' fashioned sock beating.

Soap.
Change.
A doorknob.

Lots of room for creativity with the sock beating.

axeslash
08-01-2008, 09:23 PM
Knives, chains, and rolled-up newspapers are still a lot easier to deal with than a friggin' gun.

And that recipe in Fight Club wasn't real, btw.It's not like making real explosives is any harder than described in Fight Club.

blackflag49
08-01-2008, 09:27 PM
Yea, I'm just saying..

You guys should prolly take advantage of that fact when you start your revolution. Won't even need guns.

neidnarb11890
08-01-2008, 10:21 PM
Yea, I'm just saying..

You guys should prolly take advantage of that fact when you start your revolution. Won't even need guns.
+1
Molotov cocktails are way more p0nx than guns anyway!

mbbmalcolm
08-01-2008, 10:52 PM
I think guns should be extremely limited, if not banned.

Besides, I could be wrong, but I think 99% of Americans are too lazy to start a revolution any time soon. So, once I see that changing, I may reconsider the gun control issue, but for now, I don't think there is any practical reason to use them against the government.

prplhazed
08-01-2008, 11:32 PM
I think guns should be extremely limited, if not banned.

Besides, I could be wrong, but I think 99% of Americans are too lazy to start a revolution any time soon. So, once I see that changing, I may reconsider the gun control issue, but for now, I don't think there is any practical reason to use them against the government.

Most Americans dont dislike their government enough to participate in a revolution and even fewer enough to start the revolution.
But at the same time most people are at least a little displeased with their government...

mbbmalcolm
08-01-2008, 11:35 PM
Yeah, thats partly what I meant, they don't dislike the government enough, or they aren't informed enough to rebel or anything.

gopherthegreat
08-01-2008, 11:38 PM
I'm too wimpy to BEGIN any sort of revolution.

original=punk
08-02-2008, 12:25 AM
The recipe in the movie Fight Club is incorrect, they changed it form the book version.

Arch Enemy 65
08-02-2008, 12:38 AM
I think that a gun in the right hand keeps order like religion.
A gun in the wrong hand creates anarchy.
A gun used by some punk kid who doesn't know what they're doing and wants to be "gangster" is idioacracy.
Guns are the tools that create and stop anarchy. Therefore guns are arguably one of societies greatest inventions for the better good.
Nuclear bombs on the other hand... :P

Ska Wars
08-02-2008, 12:42 AM
I think that a gun in the right hand keeps order like religion.
A gun in the wrong hand creates anarchy.
A gun used by some punk kid who doesn't know what they're doing and wants to be "gangster" is idioacracy.
Guns are the tools that create and stop anarchy. Therefore guns are arguably one of societies greatest inventions for the better good.
Nuclear bombs on the other hand... :P
wha...?

original=punk
08-02-2008, 12:45 AM
I think that a gun in the right hand keeps order like religion.
A gun in the wrong hand creates anarchy.
A gun used by some punk kid who doesn't know what they're doing and wants to be "gangster" is idioacracy.
Guns are the tools that create and stop anarchy. Therefore guns are arguably one of societies greatest inventions for the better good.
Nuclear bombs on the other hand... :P

Pretty sure AE are a heavily anti-authoritarian metal band.
Guns will aid our revolution if our masters have them (and they will) Guns created the society that anarchy is against. After the revolution, there will be no more guns.

lolmnt
08-02-2008, 12:46 AM
I think that a gun in the right hand keeps order like religion.
A gun in the wrong hand creates anarchy.
A gun used by some punk kid who doesn't know what they're doing and wants to be "gangster" is idioacracy.
Guns are the tools that create and stop anarchy. Therefore guns are arguably one of societies greatest inventions for the better good.
Nuclear bombs on the other hand... :PBut I love anarchy :confused: :confused:

axeslash
08-02-2008, 02:21 AM
I think that a gun in the right hand keeps order like religion.
A gun in the wrong hand creates anarchy.
A gun used by some punk kid who doesn't know what they're doing and wants to be "gangster" is idioacracy.
Guns are the tools that create and stop anarchy. Therefore guns are arguably one of societies greatest inventions for the better good.
Nuclear bombs on the other hand... :PNuclear bombs end wars.

:D

sargasm
08-02-2008, 03:22 AM
A gun in the wrong hand creates anarchy.

But that's what we want...

lavazza
08-02-2008, 05:43 AM
Guns are just a tool to be used. The main goal is people coming together and rising up out of their own desire to be liberated from the system.

When I talk about the revolution in terms of violence I'm not talking about Ruby Ridge, I'm talking about Spain in 1936, or the Ukraine in the Russian Civil War.


And what you want to say is that we have to be prepared for the last solution and have guns?
Then the last solution is always the Plan B. Plan A is that you get milk and honey for free without doing anything, if it doesnīt come after maximum 2 days then we need plan B. Plan B means letīs attack the government........"Oh I heard this 70 year old man once was the housekeeper of the parliament, letīs shoot him! He is the system!".......like this it will go on and soon there is another civil war, because part of the revolution arenīt just coldheaded people who use the gun against the real oppressors and the big thinkers. First of all part of the revolutions are young angry people who shouldnīt get a gun, because they remember the face of the guy who stole their girlfriend 5 years ago.

Fedayee
08-02-2008, 02:58 PM
I'm fine with shotguns and rifles. Handguns have one function: killing people. If someone wants to enter handgun sport, the weapons should be kept at the range. Additionally, I think rounds should be more expensive. They're dirt cheap.
The thing with places that have a lot of guns but less crime is that they're smaller and more culturally homogenized than the US. They know that crime just drags everyone down. However, many here think its every man for himself and so crime-- and by extension, armed crime because every criminal wants to have a weapon-- increases.

original=punk
08-02-2008, 03:14 PM
You're completely retarded, right?

Fedayee
08-02-2008, 07:44 PM
No. Doctor said I missed by one point. However, I disagree with you so I must be.

original=punk
08-02-2008, 07:46 PM
No. You say that handguns are worse than assault rifles. You sir, are an utter moron.

TheOperator
08-02-2008, 07:58 PM
In a way they are, you can't exactly hide an assault rifle out in public. It's much easier to conceal a handgun and they're so much cheaper.

Fedayee
08-02-2008, 08:07 PM
Assault rifles? There must've been a misunderstanding. I was talking about game rifles. My apologies, I thought it was a given that assault rifles are the worst firearms because of how efficient they are at killing.
In the first world, primarily, there is not so much a problem with assault rifles as there is with handguns. As The Op previously stated, handguns are cheaper and easier to hide. They are the primary murder tool in urban areas, at least and I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say they play a part in most of the US' gun problems.

original=punk
08-02-2008, 10:44 PM
Assault rifles? There must've been a misunderstanding. I was talking about game rifles. My apologies, I thought it was a given that assault rifles are the worst firearms because of how efficient they are at killing.
In the first world, primarily, there is not so much a problem with assault rifles as there is with handguns. As The Op previously stated, handguns are cheaper and easier to hide. They are the primary murder tool in urban areas, at least and I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say they play a part in most of the US' gun problems.

The US's gun problem is that they have guns and an army.

There, I said it. We don't need guns unless there's someone to shoot. When we get rid of the classes and the armies and all of that bull****, we will get rid of the guns. I'm going to agree with Sar and whyvern on this one.

Fedayee
08-02-2008, 10:55 PM
As a realist, I know that armies are going to need to be around. Why? People end up getting ****ed by their neighbors. Living in the first world, many times it is one's nation who does the ****ing or somehow contributes to it. My own, horribly biased example: smallest USSR republic. I'll be that cryptic because it pisses some ignorant bastards off and I don't really know everyone here, although because of this being the punk/ska subforum, I doubt anyone is that stupid.
Man will always divide, so we can't so much get rid of guns (though get rid all of nukes!) as we can make them less available.

original=punk
08-02-2008, 11:24 PM
As a realist, I know that armies are going to need to be around. Why? People end up getting ****ed by their neighbors. Living in the first world, many times it is one's nation who does the ****ing or somehow contributes to it. My own, horribly biased example: smallest USSR republic. I'll be that cryptic because it pisses some ignorant bastards off and I don't really know everyone here, although because of this being the punk/ska subforum, I doubt anyone is that stupid.
Man will always divide, so we can't so much get rid of guns (though get rid all of nukes!) as we can make them less available.

Realists are pessimists in denial. Your argument is moot until you realize that.

axeslash
08-02-2008, 11:35 PM
I'll be that cryptic because it pisses some ignorant bastards off and I don't really know everyone here, although because of this being the punk/ska subforum, I doubt anyone is that stupid.I don't understand. So you're basically making a terribly-worded post because it pisses people off?
EDIT:
Realists are pessimists in denial. Your argument is moot until you realize that.You best be steppin' off fool. You don't know what you're getting into.

But in all seriousness I hate it when people say that. Really I do.

original=punk
08-02-2008, 11:43 PM
EDIT:
You best be steppin' off fool. You don't know what you're getting into.

But in all seriousness I hate it when people say that. Really I do.

I know, people in denial usually don't like hearing the truth.

axeslash
08-03-2008, 12:05 AM
I know, people in denial usually don't like hearing the truth.OH NOES YOU'VE EXPOSED MY INSECURITIES!

Fedayee
08-03-2008, 01:04 AM
Believe it or not, I'm not a pessimist. I acknowledge the inherent good as well as the inherent evil in humans.
And I'm talking about the Armenia/Turkey/Azerbaijan clusterf***. The Secular Republic of Turkey is a rather connected nation and with their education, the citizens will generally not listen to me on a political level as soon as they learn of my ethnic identity.

lounge act
08-03-2008, 01:23 AM
I say get rid of all guns because if someone really wants another person dead they'll beat the f*ck out of them. But then that person will pull out his knife and then they fight to death in the county/township fighting square where a bit of the old ultra violence will be had with chain, nohz, and/or britva. Bets will be placed and a good time will be had by all.

mike2
08-03-2008, 04:24 AM
I just know that people that find guns fun and interesting...are inbred...so...yeah...think about that...

I can see owning a handgun for protection...but like I live in a middle class neighborhood...and there is no need for guns. I got this friend who owns two AK-47's and...he is never going to use them... it's dumb and a waste of money

there will probably never be a proliteriat uprising either with a bloody revolution overthrowing the government.

The second amendment is for militias too, if you read it. It was meant to keep the government in check.

whyvern
08-03-2008, 05:52 AM
there will never be a violent revolution in the first world


That's incredibly presumptuous of you to say. Why would there NEVER be a violent revolution in the first world? Because we're too comfortable with our livestyles? I have to say it won't come as long as we're comfortable but as soon as this whole material comfort wears off I think people will start seeing how they've been ****ed over for so long.

In America if people would talk to their new neighbors coming up from Mexico they'd have even more reasons to get pissed off at them (and themselves) for reaping the benefits of NAFTA.


And what you want to say is that we have to be prepared for the last solution and have guns?
Then the last solution is always the Plan B. Plan A is that you get milk and honey for free without doing anything, if it doesnīt come after maximum 2 days then we need plan B. Plan B means letīs attack the government........"Oh I heard this 70 year old man once was the housekeeper of the parliament, letīs shoot him! He is the system!".......like this it will go on and soon there is another civil war, because part of the revolution arenīt just coldheaded people who use the gun against the real oppressors and the big thinkers. First of all part of the revolutions are young angry people who shouldnīt get a gun, because they remember the face of the guy who stole their girlfriend 5 years ago.

Of course we should be prepared for the worst case scenario because that's what violence is, the last resort. I think peaceful efforts to bring about the revolution are the most effective way of getting things done but we shouldn't surrender more of our power and autonomy to the system that attempts to control us, which is what people have done in so many European countries.

It's been long ingrained into European consciousness to bow down to the government (as late as a century ago you still had divine kings and queens ruling large parts of Europe for example), I mean here in Italy if you get a drivers license you can't say no to a brethalizer and there's no field sobriety test, if they want to take yer blood to check BAC and you refuse you go immediately to jail, in Germany they force you down and take yer blood... you can argue that that's for everyone's safety but it's also a blatant violation of yer civil liberties and I don't see too many people here up in arms about that, if that happened in America people would go ape**** and call it police brutality and the ACLU would have a field day. So in comparison the whole American psyche is counterintuitive to that it's always been about throwing that bull**** off (kinda like when we kicked King George's ass in the 1770's) so the government that controls us had to find a new way to control the masses in America and they did that through the guise of Mass Consumerism and Capitalism which is probably the most effective way to control people, make them comfortable and blind them to the consequences of their actions and they won't want to kill you.

But anyways what I'm saying is that you'll see more Americans have this pro-gun ideology than Europeans because it's been ingrained in our heads that we aren't to bow down to any government and big government is bad (which is why the republican party is so dominate in the majority of America) Americans instead bow down to a different type of power... the Dollar.

So ideally in America at least the revolution should happen in the form of overcoming the blinds that the capitalist system puts on us and identifying what's wrong in the world and reaching out in solidarity to help. Violence is the last resort, when they come for us we wanna be ready for them.

lavazza
08-03-2008, 09:09 AM
...Iīm not quoting it, otherwise my IE goes down, sorry...

As much I appreciate your ideology and lifestyle, but you said it yourself somehow: Americans and Europeans are really influenced by their history, part of the American history is the declaration of independence with its human rights, this paper is 250 years old and it says you itīs your right to own whatever you need to defend yourself. The NRA says: "Who should defend your wife if not you?", you say "Who should defend my freedom if itīs not me?". But both of you hint on the same, you need a gun for a peaceful life. A gun? Thatīs contradicting. Thatīs the argumentation of our governments: "We need this nuclear bomb to defend ourselves against foreign oppressors." The next government says: "They have toys I want some too".
Thatīs a cold war between the people and the police, itīs just the police has a better bank account. There is a Descendents song, where they sing: "The cops got tanks cause the kids got guns." Itīs pop punk, but the truth.

whyvern
08-04-2008, 05:20 AM
^ I don't own a gun personally. I was raised around them but I'd still never be comfortable with shooting someone. I don't think I need one to have a peaceful life. I have a peaceful and comfortable life right now without owning one I'm talking about guns in the sake of trying to abolish the government. Also as an anarchist I believe I should take my life and my freedom into my own hands because the capitalist system is ultimately not in my best interest (it's more in my interests than it is for people in third world countries for instance), because I'm not at the top of the hierarchy.

I don't own a gun and I don't feel the need to right now but if things get worse I might, if they start cracking down more on my civil liberties and putting more of my friends in jail than they all ready have then I MIGHT feel the need to own one. Until then I'm gonna try all peaceful forms of resistance (not being as much of a part of a consumer society by dumpster diving, riding my bike et. al, raising awareness about the damages of capitalism worldwide and trying to become a part of the community I live in and make it better). Ultimately those forms of resistance are more effective and even necessary before any form of violent revolution could become close to successful.

lavazza
08-04-2008, 05:26 AM
not being as much of a part of a consumer society by dumpster diving, riding my bike et. al, raising awareness about the damages of capitalism worldwide and trying to become a part of the community I live in and make it better). Ultimately those forms of resistance are more effective and even necessary before any form of violent revolution could become close to successful.

Then we arenīt so different......

But when things get worse and we can talk about a real dystopia, then they will control guns, but then there wonīt be such problems to get a gun and then i can maybe support it, as long as the gun is used after thinking and not just shoot everybody who looks like an opponent.

Oh and Iīm glad to hear there are Americans who think itīs right to use a bike. Whatever your motives are, if itīs just the oil companies, or also the global warming.

FuzzyBear
08-04-2008, 07:24 AM
so whats going to spark this revolution then? people are too obedient, look at milgrams studies into obedience, people will do anything their told if its by a perceived authority figure

there was no revolution in nazi germany
no revolution in soviet russia
no revolution in thatcher britain
no revolution during the vietnam war & the draft
no revolution because of the war on iraq
no revolution when people got sent to guantanamo(sp?) bay, held against their will and tortured
no revolution because of the patriot act

non of those imposed on civil liberties enough?

BrianApocalypse
08-04-2008, 08:08 AM
^ No revolution in Nazi Germany?

Don't you think that the Von Stauffenberg attempted coup d'etat counts?

There probably are all sorts of other widely undocumented attempts that were crushed for whatever reason. Just because revolutions quickly fail, it doesn't mean that the people are neccessarily obedient.

For a revolution, all you need is a leader, a small number of loyal followers,a large number of loyal sycophants and the support of the masses.

FuzzyBear
08-04-2008, 08:56 AM
i would say a coup and a revolution are different

revolution: the overthrow of a government by those who are governed

a revolution is by the masses for the masses

coup: a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force

a coup is a small elite group doing something for their own agenda


plus even if your classing them as the same, then they failed, proving the point of having guns moot as your outgunned by the government

whyvern
08-04-2008, 09:08 AM
people aren't obedient... we all break the laws all the time. Revolutions have been successful and just because it's been a while doesn't mean it can't happen again, as soon as the material comforts that capitalism gives you start to show their cracks just a little bit all hell will break loose.... that's what happened when the Soviet system showed it's cracks... BAM revolution (including some armed struggles)... now things didn't take a turn for the better but they happened. It's all about momentum and interia when **** starts to roll down a hill it's hard to stop it once it's reached a certain speed and our history in the past 100 years has been snowballing with oppression.

BrianApocalypse
08-04-2008, 09:26 AM
i would say a coup and a revolution are different

revolution: the overthrow of a government by those who are governed

a revolution is by the masses for the masses

coup: a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force

a coup is a small elite group doing something for their own agenda


plus even if your classing them as the same, then they failed, proving the point of having guns moot as your outgunned by the government

Fair game then :)

FuzzyBear
08-04-2008, 10:05 AM
people aren't obedient... we all break the laws all the time.


breaking a little law when you think noones looking is not disobedience, disobedience is someone openly saying "no" to an authority figure

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority"
Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371–378.

this experiment has been replicated again and again using different circumstances and always yeilds the same results

people are obedient

unless youve got a source you want to cite

whyvern
08-04-2008, 10:09 AM
no I don't have a source cos I haven't taken any psychology class so I'm not familiar with who I would use to prove my points other than feelings I've felt myself and have seen alot of people feel as well. There's a huge rebel streak in humans, it's our nature... also that source is rather old don't you think? 1963? That was before the counterculture, civil rights movement etc... I think the notion of ordinary people has changed alot since then wouldn't you agree? People resist authority all the time some do it consciously and others just do it.

FuzzyBear
08-04-2008, 10:21 AM
no I don't have a source cos I haven't taken any psychology class so I'm not familiar with who I would use to prove my points other than feelings I've felt myself and have seen alot of people feel as well. There's a huge rebel streak in humans, it's our nature... also that source is rather old don't you think? 1963? That was before the counterculture, civil rights movement etc... I think the notion of ordinary people has changed alot since then wouldn't you agree? People resist authority all the time some do it consciously and others just do it.


as i said this experiment has been repeated and tweaked again and again, off the top of my head the most recent being 2006 and always brings the same results.

rebellion is not nature, the idea is just romantacised

and again, yes people may resist authority, but only in very small numbers, nowhere near enough for the mass uprising required of a revolution

and im sorry but you cant argue against quantified scientific studies with a "feeling", thats like arguing the world is flat

whyvern
08-04-2008, 10:31 AM
^ yeah but that's just one study, if I knew more studies I'd be able to prove you wrong so I'm arguing with what I've experienced. That argument doesn't make sense because people DO change their lives when they find out the effects of how their living, look at this "green" trend that's becoming prevalent, people are changing their lives because it's been made apparent of the environmental harm that they're doing. They aren't going as far as I'd like to see people going (admitting that they live in a self-destructive culture) but they're making steps.

How do you explain the massive protests in SF after the war started if people aren't disobedient? There's holes in it, and I understand that people aren't 100% willing always to throw down against the state but it's happened before in history and it will happen again saying otherwise is just as bad as being a conspiracy theorist who insists on one of those New World Order one world government things... it's saying that they allready control us to the point where we are irrelevant. If they allready control us why am I writing this? why are they spending billions of dollars to watch what people check out of libraries? what are they so scared of if they're so in charge?

FuzzyBear
08-04-2008, 10:55 AM
i could quote a whole bunch of studies that say people are obedient and conformist.

and saying if you knew more studies you could argue, your actually using ignorance as your argument now.

"look at this "green" trend that's becoming prevalent,"

you said it yourself dude "TREND" is conformity
and authority figures are the ones encouraging going "green"

apart from the fact that there equal evidence for the argument that global warming doesnt even exist and we dont effect the environment. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research have shown that global warmings number 1 spokesman Al gore has a home that uses "20 times as much electricity as the average household nationwide." and also co-launched Generation Investment Management, a carbon neutrality token firm that profits from the trend.
most people dont know **** about global warming and havnt even looked at the argument from both sides.


an yeah, 99% of people are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things

lavazza
08-05-2008, 04:31 AM
so whats going to spark this revolution then? people are too obedient, look at milgrams studies into obedience, people will do anything their told if its by a perceived authority figure

...

non of those imposed on civil liberties enough?

intelligent of you to leave out

a revolution in Italy which killed Mussolini
a revolution in Romania which killed Ceaucsescu
a revolution in Cuba which took up Fidel
a revolution in Nicaragua which put up the Sandinistas
a continous try in Franco Spain
the French Revolution
Ghandi led a kind of Revolution

Itīs just the people are comfortable enough in todays USA, the technology is so far that they can be observed easily without knowing it for sure. Furthermore 9/11 is a magic word.

FuzzyBear
08-05-2008, 06:11 AM
my argument was that there will be no revolution in a first world country in this day and age, it still stands

Mussolini was voted out of power by his peers, and the regime collapsed due to the allied invasion

Romania is not first world, and it was widely argued that Iliescu and the FSN had merely taken advantage of the chaos to stage a coup

Cuba not first world

Nicaragua not first world

Spainish revolution, not current

the French Revolution was 300 years ago

Ghandi was not in the first world

lavazza
08-05-2008, 06:32 AM
Mussolini was voted out of power by his peers, and the regime collapsed due to the allied invasion

Romania is not first world, and it was widely argued that Iliescu and the FSN had merely taken advantage of the chaos to stage a coup

Spainish revolution, not current

Ghandi was not in the first world

As far as I know the oppostion took away Mussolini before Italy was lost

Romania wasnīt in these days, but today itīs EU, not first world, but not far away either

Spain: Thereīre ongoing terror attacks and Hitler was longer ago, than Franco

Ghandi beat the first world, he didnīt did a revolution in India, but in the British Empire

FuzzyBear
08-05-2008, 07:53 AM
1943 Dino Grandi moved a resolution asking the king to resume his full constitutional powers--a vote of no confidence in Mussolini. This motion carried by a 19-7 margin.

romania is classed as 2nd world today

terrorism is not revolution

ghandi did help get indias independence but india was still a poor 3rd world country under empire rule. Also he rejected violent protest, so cant be used as an argument for the right to bear arms for revolution.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."



boom.

Adarsh
08-05-2008, 08:02 AM
Gandhi, guys. No "h" after the G. No Ghandi. It's Gandhi. Ghandi is a word for "dirty".

lavazza
08-06-2008, 03:57 AM
1943 Dino Grandi moved a resolution asking the king to resume his full constitutional powers--a vote of no confidence in Mussolini. This motion carried by a 19-7 margin.

romania is classed as 2nd world today

terrorism is not revolution

ghandi did help get indias independence but india was still a poor 3rd world country under empire rule. Also he rejected violent protest, so cant be used as an argument for the right to bear arms for revolution.


Gandhi led India, but beat the United Kingdom, so he didnīt revolt in the first world but against the first world (succesful)

But your first argument. I donīt think Germany under the late Hitler was still first world

FuzzyBear
08-06-2008, 06:00 AM
true germany was in a recession following WWI but Hitler brought it out of and transformed it into a major global power

my main point with germany was there was some of the most atrocious civil liberty violations in human history going on there but there was no revolution, so what would it take to start one.

lavazza
08-07-2008, 08:43 AM
my main point with germany was there was some of the most atrocious civil liberty violations in human history going on there but there was no revolution, so what would it take to start one.

the people had different things to do, for example fighting a war. So they didnīt had the time to plan a revolution. Without a war things would have looked differently.
But youīre right itīs hard to believe that there will be a revolution in a first world country, because I cannot see a country where things get down so far, that revolutionary forces can get so many people for aim.

BrianApocalypse
08-07-2008, 11:13 AM
Gandhi, guys. No "h" after the G. No Ghandi. It's Gandhi. Ghandi is a word for "dirty".

:haha:haha :D :haha:haha :D :haha:haha

I didn't know that.

Fedayee
08-07-2008, 12:41 PM
the people had different things to do, for example fighting a war. So they didnīt had the time to plan a revolution. Without a war things would have looked differently.
But youīre right itīs hard to believe that there will be a revolution in a first world country, because I cannot see a country where things get down so far, that revolutionary forces can get so many people for aim.
This is due to the first world being democratic. Why start an armed rebellion if one can avoid it and just elect new officials. However, there may be one if Johnny Mac gets elected. I don't think it will happen; no one does and if he does, everyone's going to be pissed.

original=punk
08-08-2008, 12:25 AM
I highly doubt johnny will get elected.

I also made a pledge that if he does, some bitches are gonna pay.

lavazza
08-08-2008, 04:53 AM
:haha:haha :D :haha:haha :D :haha:haha


Were the pills expensive Brian? Or do you have a Smarties flash?

RockThe40oz
08-08-2008, 07:40 AM
I highly doubt johnny will get elected.

I also made a pledge that if he does, some bitches are gonna pay.

Yeah, well, nobody thought Bush would get reelected... I'm already preparing for a McCain victory.

original=punk
08-08-2008, 10:17 AM
Bush got reelected because they were in the middle of a war and the democrat candidate sucked.

sjada
08-08-2008, 10:24 AM
Yeah, well, nobody thought Bush would get reelected... I'm already preparing for a McCain victory.
nah, i think a lot of the independents are gonna wanna mix it up a little and let a democrat in. maybe thats just cause i live in new england tho.

werty22
08-08-2008, 01:45 PM
Bush got reelected because they were in the middle of a war and the democrat candidate sucked.
Yeah, at that time, a lot fewer people were opposed to the war. I think most people still wanted Saddam Hussein to be captured. Now people are really sick of Bush being in charge. Since people see all republicans as being like Bush, I really doubt McCain will win. People really like Obama, unlike John Kerry.

Berlioz97
08-08-2008, 02:44 PM
Bush got reelected because they were in the middle of a war and the democrat candidate sucked.
what Democrat doesn't suck though?

sargasm
08-08-2008, 06:00 PM
Alright, carry on this discussion in the off-topic thread if desired