GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Gays and Guns  (Read 6714 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #17 on: Sun, May 28, 2006, 01:45 »

Sure, a well-organized gay paramilitary would be of greate use in certain areas of the world. A very well organized gay paramilitary would be able to control not a humble a piece of territory and turn it into a gay state with joint effort of other gays.

The organized and if I might say so scientific application of force will play a limited role in lenght of time and in the course of the establishment of a gay independent State.The window of opportunity for such a purpose,for example during an interregnum within some hethro society,will be narrow.We will have to seize quickly some territorial prizes,plus some more to use as bargaining chips to hand back should some international conference follow.I must say this here that separatist though I might be,I am not sympathetic to the type of organization in militias which exists in the United States.We could perfectly remain civilians.But we cannot remain ignorant of military matters,organization and history.Or incapable of applying our knowledges in that respect.Or dispense ourselves with a thorough political education and preparation.History had had excellent war leaders,like the bolshevik Leon Trotsky who wasn`t a professionnal soldier as far as I know.He commanded whole armies during the Russian
civil war,from his armoured train.Armies he had in the field,but also his private library in his armoured train.Reading books,he had learned all what a war leader and Prince in the machiavelian sense had to know.He won the Russian civil war.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #16 on: Sun, May 28, 2006, 00:50 »

In a situation of anarchy,armed groups operating professionnally and in a concerted fashion will eventually and rather easily conquer isolated armed individuals.They are the ones who will eventually be the inheritors of a former State which vanished from the map.The survival of isolated armed individuals in that context will only be temporary,unless they join or form a group,their respective group.If gays won`t play the game themselves,with their own organization and with a plan,they will be among the defeated.Someone else will grab territory and eventually turn it into a State. There is no question for gays of joining any non-gay organization,of course.

Sure, a well-organized gay paramilitary would be of greate use in certain areas of the world. A very well organized gay paramilitary would be able to control not a humble a piece of territory and turn it into a gay state with joint effort of other gays. Unfortunately, we are far from being organized: neither in Europe, not in the US and not in Russia. In the latter country, only few dozens of gays and lesbians attended the march for gay rights on 27 May 2006, whereas the city might count many hundreds of thousands gays and lesbians - all of them sitting at home and waiting untill they will be bashed on dark streets one by one. If getting armed, than as organization - then it will be probably possible to use firsts instead of bullets.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #15 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 21:20 »


That less-than-lethal outcome is what why you don't carry small-caliber weapons with little stopping power; it's what hollow-point, high-powered ++ P ammunition is for; and it's where the tactical doctrine of 'point, squeeze and continue squeezing until the target is altogether dead' comes into play.


There exists on the market a computer game called IGI-2 (I am going in 2).It reproduces fairly accurately the environment and outcome of a fight with a variety of weapons.A work colleague of mine who knew how to man a computer with respect to that game,but who knew nothing about infantry tactics,once asked me to help him winning the said game.There he sat,manning the computer,and I giving him indications on how to operate and liquidate his adversaries one by like ducks on a pond.The pistol with a silencer was good only to shoot unsuspecting adversaries,preferably in the back.The game was realistic in the sense that one won by  skill and planning,rather than by raw violence.My
work colleague,who had no experience with weapons and who had never been trained militarily,was generally shot at the beginning of the game.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #14 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 20:59 »


Despite what you might have heard, the vast, vast majority of people are not armed here in the US, especially on the street. And I include criminals in that. I have read the same statistics you have about the potential for a gun to be turned on its bearer. All I can say is that in the 2 years that I (legally) carried a revolver back in the 90s, I was called upon to draw it twice-- and actually point it once. In both circumstances, the distinct threats evaporated as soon as the pistol cleared the holster. 


If - hypothetically always - I drew some weapon in a situation of present and immediate danger,I would have beforehand contemplated the effective use of that weapon and weighted carefully the chances of coming out as the victor.Against a group of attackers,I would have figured out a plan to disable the entire group in a single blow,leaving no one capable of firing back.Such a result cannot be achieved with a mere handgun.I never had like you to draw a weapon for my defense.But I have been twice to at least one dangerous place on earth - Colombia - and there merely drawing a pistol would not necessarily ensure one`s survival.Down there,they wouldn`t even leave you the opportunity to draw to start with.Gays who advocate the use of force and violence are undoubtedly very courageous people.But they are not always very consequent.
Weapons are for trained people,part of some armed force,even the armed force of a State which is still embryonic.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #13 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 20:41 »

When the State collapses, the main task is remaining alive and protecting your loved ones. Again, above, you assume that military or paramilitary organizations would necessesarily be operating for the good of GLBT people in such circumstances. In the US, as in so many other places, that cannot be assumed. The history of such organizations requires that thoughtful GLBT people think otherwise.

In a situation of anarchy,armed groups operating professionnally and in a concerted fashion will eventually and rather easily conquer isolated armed individuals.They are the ones who will eventually be the inheritors of a former State which vanished from the map.The survival of isolated armed individuals in that context will only be temporary,unless they join or form a group,their respective group.If gays won`t play the game themselves,with their own organization and with a plan,they will be among the defeated.Someone else will grab territory and eventually turn it into a State.
There is no question for gays of joining any non-gay organization,of course.

K6

Ninja_monkey

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 19
  • Adversus solem ne loquitor
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #12 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 20:16 »

Nevertheless, as society US-Americans should earnestly think of their relationship to guns - it's unique in the so-called "civilized world".

Just to be absolutely clear: I do not consider the US to be part of the 'civilized world.'

Quote
The truth is that a pistol usually does not protect you from street-level attacks - any smart attacker serious about his aims wil not give you a chance. In a society where most citizens do not carry wheapons, the criminal can assume that his victim is unarmed and therefore usually threatens the victim with a gun.

Despite what you might have heard, the vast, vast majority of people are not armed here in the US, especially on the street. And I include criminals in that. I have read the same statistics you have about the potential for a gun to be turned on its bearer. All I can say is that in the 2 years that I (legally) carried a revolver back in the 90s, I was called upon to draw it twice-- and actually point it once. In both circumstances, the distinct threats evaporated as soon as the pistol cleared the holster. 

Quote
As I said above, this is a problem which can be solved in a collective effort by the entire society. Because it is also true, that in a totally armed society singular unarmed individuals will, of course, happen not to live very long.

I suppose you're right to an extent. That said, I'm perfectly content to let the bashers disarm first. They can give me a call when they've credibly done so.

Especially useless is the handgun: with it,one will probably miss the target even at close range.Even hit,your adversary might not die at once from a pistol shot and summon enough strenght to fire back at you and kill you.

That less-than-lethal outcome is what why you don't carry small-caliber weapons with little stopping power; it's what hollow-point, high-powered ++ P ammunition is for; and it's where the tactical doctrine of 'point, squeeze and continue squeezing until the target is altogether dead' comes into play.

When the State collapses,the main task consists in establishing a new one.One is only freed then from allegiance to the former State which
disintegrated and ceased to protect human life and to maintain public order.Weapons are then only for military or paramilitary organizations
whose purpose is to establish a new State.People carrying weapons without having such a purpose are bandits.

When the State collapses, the main task is remaining alive and protecting your loved ones. Again, above, you assume that military or paramilitary organizations would necessesarily be operating for the good of GLBT people in such circumstances. In the US, as in so many other places, that cannot be assumed. The history of such organizations requires that thoughtful GLBT people think otherwise.

This is of course an entirely theoretical discussion with no practical aim in sight.But in a very dangerous street environment,I would prefer to carry - and eventually use - grenades,rather than a handgun.Grenades kill more people and can create panic.

 ::)
It's all about the thumpa thumpa.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #11 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 12:29 »


Nevertheless, as society US-Americans should earnestly think of their relationship to guns - it's unique in the so-called "civilized world".


Perhaps it would be as well that Americans remain the way they are in that respect.Because they are generally not aware of the possible grave political consequences of their infatuation and illusions with guns.Americans do not know history as well as you Europeans do.It is not even certain
that they can foresee the simple tactical consequences of the use of a gun,amidst a society which is said to have more guns than inhabitants.Of
course,someone out of a group of attackers and whom you haven`t noticed and shot will fire back at you.The infatuation and illusions of Americans about guns could lead to the quick disintegration of their country.What happened in New Orleans in the summer of 2005 was only a rehearsal on a small scale in that respect.Once public order has broken down,it could prove difficult if not impossible to reestablish normal conditions of life for several years.As Machiavelli once wrote "One starts a war when one wants,one stops it when one can",but most Americans do not know that.In a scenario of establishment of a gay independent State based on some interregnum,this could prove usefull to the designs of a gay independence movement.We gays do not possess the power to destroy any organized hethro society.Why then object the hethro
population doing it in our place ? Let the usefull and unaware be usefull and remain unaware.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #10 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 01:42 »


If I happened to live in sub-urbs of Rio de Janeiro, or even in some German cities, I would probably consider buying a weapon by myselfe - just to feel better.

This is of course an entirely theoretical discussion with no practical aim in sight.But in a very dangerous street environment,I would prefer to carry - and eventually use - grenades,rather than a handgun.Grenades kill more people and can create panic.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #9 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 01:15 »

Surelly, I have certain understanding for any individual relying on his own powers in circumstances of weak or non-existent state power.

When the State collapses,the main task consists in establishing a new one.One is only freed then from allegiance to the former State which
disintegrated and ceased to protect human life and to maintain public order.Weapons are then only for military or paramilitary organizations
whose purpose is to establish a new State.People carrying weapons without having such a purpose are bandits.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #8 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 01:06 »

He would be as dead as in the case the "kids" would have managed to wrestle his gun away from him and having executed him at the spot with his own gun. However successfull examples of a self-defence with a gun exist, they are but singular: the general statistics show that a normal citizen is more likely to be confronted with his own gun, than to successfully defeat the enemy.

I have had experience with all sorts of weapons and using live ammo: handguns,hunting rifles,military assault rifles,submachine guns.I had theoretical courses with heavy machine guns (.30 GPMG) and with anti-tank weapons (swedish Karl Gustav) and grenades.Weapons are almost useless in the hands of a person without training.Especially useless is the handgun: with it,one will probably miss the target even at close range.Even hit,your adversary might not die at once from a pistol shot and summon enough strenght to fire back at you and kill you.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #7 on: Sat, May 27, 2006, 00:21 »

The 'possible outcome' in that hypothetical would have at least been in play, i.e., the 'good guy' would have a fighting chance. Had the 'kids' been carrying guns and the 'good guy' was not... what outcome do you see there?

He would be as dead as in the case the "kids" would have managed to wrestle his gun away from him and having executed him at the spot with his own gun. However successfull examples of a self-defence with a gun exist, they are but singular: the general statistics show that a normal citizen is more likely to be confronted with his own gun, than to successfully defeat the enemy.

If, however, you live in the US-- where GLBT rights go largely unprotected, and where the State openly and deliberately conspires to deny GLBT people their civil rights-- well, how about you pardon GLBT people in such circumstances if they choose to ensure for themselves that they possess at least a last-ditch defense. That is, putting a bullet between the eyes of a basher?

Surelly, I have certain understanding for any individual relying on his own powers in circumstances of weak or non-existent state power. If I happened to live in sub-urbs of Rio de Janeiro, or even in some German cities, I would probably consider buying a weapon by myselfe - just to feel better. Nevertheless, as society US-Americans should earnestly think of their relationship to guns - it's unique in the so-called "civilized world".

So, if toting a pistol only protects you from telegraphed, up-close, street-level attacks and not, say, sniper fire from a concealed perch at 300 meters, that's a reason to give up the up-close defense? 

The truth is that a pistol usually does not protect you from street-level attacks - any smart attacker serious about his aims wil not give you a chance. In a society where most citizens do not carry wheapons, the criminal can assume that his victim is unarmed and therefore usually threatens the victim with a gun. In societies, where everyone is armed, offenders are forced too shoot without asking - they also care about their own lives. Now, in what kind of society do you want to live?

As I said above, this is a problem which can be solved in a collective effort by the entire society. Because it is also true, that in a totally armed society singular unarmed individuals will, of course, happen not to live very long.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Ninja_monkey

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 19
  • Adversus solem ne loquitor
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #6 on: Fri, May 26, 2006, 23:54 »

Well, what would be the possible outcome if "the kids" were carrying fire arms themeselves?

The 'possible outcome' in that hypothetical would have at least been in play, i.e., the 'good guy' would have a fighting chance. Had the 'kids' been carrying guns and the 'good guy' was not... what outcome do you see there?

Quote
...the society at large makes itself a very bad service by allowing citizens to posess weapons and to carry them in public. Fire arms belong into hands of professional users, and certainly should not be considered as a legitimate means of self-defence in a street or pub squarrel.

First, a bashing is not a 'quarrel.' It is an unprovoked attack that often proves deadly for the victim.

As for the penchant for 'professional users,' there exists an understandable divergence in opinion, depending on where you live. If you abide in a State that largely protects GLBT rights, you are perhaps more inclined to accept that State's decision on who is authorized to defend himself by use of deadly force.... and who is not.

If, however, you live in the US-- where GLBT rights go largely unprotected, and where the State openly and deliberately conspires to deny GLBT people their civil rights-- well, how about you pardon GLBT people in such circumstances if they choose to ensure for themselves that they possess at least a last-ditch defense. That is, putting a bullet between the eyes of a basher?

Quote
The current hystery in the US about fire arms cannot be rationally explained, as fire arms in the hands of private people usually do not help them to protect themselves from real criminals: the really bad guys shoot without being kind to allow you to pull your gun as well.

So, if toting a pistol only protects you from telegraphed, up-close, street-level attacks and not, say, sniper fire from a concealed perch at 300 meters, that's a reason to give up the up-close defense? 
It's all about the thumpa thumpa.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #5 on: Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 23:25 »

The current hystery in the US about fire arms cannot be rationally explained, as fire arms in the hands of private people usually do not help them to protect themselves from real criminals: the really bad guys shoot without being kind to allow you to pull your gun as well. If gays in some dangerous areas were to "become armed", they should rather form militia and execute justice in organized manner. It is understood that such a solution is not compatible with the laws of most countries and shall be only considered if there is no other possibility to protect oneself.

The attitude of many Americans towards fireams is rational: it has to do with their historical experience of having always conquered by way of firepower alone.Such people,confident and braggards though they may appear at first glance,will find themselves quite dissoriented in a situation where firepower does not conquer,and where competence in intelligence gathering and analysing,as well as diplomacy,is required.Like during the
Vietnam war,or nowadays in Irak.Carrying a fiream will not make up for ignorance or lack of proper political leadership or training.We need the courage of such gays who advocate the use of force to settle our accounts,but their advice is of very poor quality.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #4 on: Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 23:00 »

Well, what would be the possible outcome if "the kids" were carrying fire arms themeselves? It is easy to understand individuals who posess guns for their protection, but it is not at all understandable why the state withdraws from its primary field of enforcing public safety by monopolization the right for violence.

While a single person might feel better with it's own "Uzi" under the pillow, the society at large makes itself a very bad service by allowing citizens to posess weapons and to carry them in public. Fire arms belong into hands of professional users, and certainly should not be considered as a legitimate means of self-defence in a street or pub squarrel.

I am very familiar with the use of fireams,having hunted on a regularly basis from the time I was a kid untill I was a young adult.I have more or less the same reservations about fireams you have.A pistol,for example,is not a very efficient weapon.The barrel is too short,and the weapon iitself thus lacks precision beyond a certain distance.It would not be of much use to a person who is not trained in its handling.The most dangerous individual is,I think,a spy,wether he carries or not a gun.He has and collects information,which is why perhaps he is not protected by the Hague convention whereas a soldier carrying a gun is.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Gays and Guns
« Reply #3 on: Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 20:37 »

Quote
"[..] This was a successful self-defense with a gun," Greene says. Without a weapon, he says, the kids would've ganged up on him, and the cops wouldn't have been able to do anything. [..]

Well, what would be the possible outcome if "the kids" were carrying fire arms themeselves? It is easy to understand individuals who posess guns for their protection, but it is not at all understandable why the state withdraws from its primary field of enforcing public safety by monopolization the right for violence.

While a single person might feel better with it's own "Uzi" under the pillow, the society at large makes itself a very bad service by allowing citizens to posess weapons and to carry them in public. Fire arms belong into hands of professional users, and certainly should not be considered as a legitimate means of self-defence in a street or pub squarrel.

It's certainly true that "not guns kill humans - humans kill humans", but it's also true that if children bring fire arms into school rooms something is wrong with the society. It is also true that the custom law of many peoples regards carrying fire arms as the most normal thing, and no especially high murder rates can be registered there. But: these people posess guns for for hunting, not for "self defence"! The current hystery in the US about fire arms cannot be rationally explained, as fire arms in the hands of private people usually do not help them to protect themselves from real criminals: the really bad guys shoot without being kind to allow you to pull your gun as well. If gays in some dangerous areas were to "become armed", they should rather form militia and execute justice in organized manner. It is understood that such a solution is not compatible with the laws of most countries and shall be only considered if there is no other possibility to protect oneself.

There are other ways than guns to be feared: the practice of martial arts. [..] The practice of martial arts first keep you in shape,fills you with confidence and calm in dangerous situations,and in a way instill you with discipline.Discipline in the style of Karate I once practiced for eight years was almost as stiff as in the armed forces. [..]

A good advice for a young person! Though an old adage from the soviet times says "there is no artifice against a wrecking bar", the martial arts certainly can prove very helpful against the usual assault on the street. For those less sportive I recommend a pepper spray. 
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up