Anarchist take on gun control

118 replies [Last post]
JDMF's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 21-05-04

Comms,

I have had the pleasure to discuss gun control issues with an american anarchist.

he is in the position that gun ownership is an individuals right and people should be armed so not to give the state the monopoly of gun ownership. He also calls gun control laws "victim disarmament" laws (like all people are victims).

Anyways, I can see his points broadly speaking in theoretical sense. But since i am not into theory as much as i am into the real situation of working class people getting killed in their thousands per year in US, i am in favour of much stricter gun control and measures to get guns off the streets (recent example of what has been done in brazil is a good example and has already reduced the amount of gun deaths in the country).

Anyways, even theoretically speaking, i think widespread gun ownership should be accountable to the community and not based on everyone getting armed to the teeth and being suspicious of everyone as a potential rapist and murderer and calling everyone a victim furthering the atomisation of working class.

What are your thoughts on this?

PaulMarsh's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 years 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 26-09-03

Theoretically your contact is quite right.

I can recall a debate on Urban 75 about this though, which brought home to me the problems between theory and reality.

Someone dug out the figures for the number of under 16 year olds killed by firearms in the USA each year, (where gun ownership is widespread) and the number of under 16 year olds killed in the same manner in Japan each year (where private gun ownership is virtually unknown)

The figures shocked me to the core, and were the best argument for gun control I had ever seen.

In this case, I would go with the reality and say bollocks to the theory.

Steven.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 35 min 47 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
PaulMarsh wrote:
The figures shocked me to the core, and were the best argument for gun control I had ever seen.

In this case, I would go with the reality and say bollocks to the theory.

Yeah I think I would generally go with the theory - the state should not have a monopoly of violence. Paul, those figures don't tell the whole story. Gun ownership in Canada is higher than the US, yet gun deaths are virtually non-existant, like Japan or here. Like the NRA say - "guns don't kill people, people kill people" wink. Stupid obviously, but some truth in it.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

the problem with that theory is that it's not 1794 and the state is much more than armed groups of men. Surely we would seek to have demorcatic structures for the control of firearms, instead of this bourgeois individulist shit about the "right to bear arms".

Steven.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 35 min 47 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
revol68 wrote:
the problem with that theory is that it's not 1794 and the state is much more than armed groups of men. Surely we would seek to have demorcatic structures for the control of firearms, instead of this bourgeois individulist shit about the "right to bear arms".

Yeah I think that's fair enough, in a communist society that should be the case - although TBH I think arms should be spread as evenly as possible, because any group who controlled the collective gun stores, would basically de facto control society. The state now might be "much more than armed groups of men" but at its root that's all it is.

User offline. Last seen 15 min 14 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 2-10-04

What john said. Two posts ago, I meant when I was typing this. The difference between Canada and the US is very important.

Overwhelmingly its not the legally held firearms that are used to kill people (if we remove the figures for state forces from the equation) its illegal ones. Barring suicides carried out with firearms of course - though if someones that determined to top themselves they'll probably use another method.

A lot of chucks have been demanding that people with shotguns (issued for vermin control and sporting purposes) in the north are disarmed - its not because loads of people get killed by shotgun wielding maniacs the problem of course is the perception that its only prods who have shotguns. While the figures may be disproportionate there are plenty of catholic farmers with shotguns who can also grant permission for others to shot on their land - and quite a few protestant farmers who don't mind what religion the bloke shooting magpies & rabbits on his land is.

I actually prefer Bernadette McAliskeys position that more people should apply for permits.

When you remember that some of the first militias set up in the states were organised by immigrant socialists, anarchists and trade unionists and you look at the right wing fuckers who are the militias now you have to wonder at the damage a lot of pc hand wringing has done.

And revol68 are you gonna democratically tell someone when its time to bag a few duck? I know local doesn't relate too closely to the type of shit people can own in the states (maybe that has some psychological impact on the difference between Canada & the US?). I mean some guns are for hunting, some for 'personal protection' and others are obviously for mowing shit loadsa people down (and if its individual self defence yer on about thats not what these are for either).

circle A red n black star

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
John. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
the problem with that theory is that it's not 1794 and the state is much more than armed groups of men. Surely we would seek to have demorcatic structures for the control of firearms, instead of this bourgeois individulist shit about the "right to bear arms".

Yeah I think that's fair enough, in a communist society that should be the case - although TBH I think arms should be spread as evenly as possible, because any group who controlled the collective gun stores, would basically de facto control society. The state now might be "much more than armed groups of men" but at its root that's all it is.

you'd need the collective gun store owners to share an interest in oppressing everyone else, i mean if they decided they were going to keep the arms all to themselves and stage some sort of coup, im sure the local commune/soviet would ahve something to say. And im sure they'd not be to good at shooting when they've not eaten in a week.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

well when i said democratic structures i was kind of imagining they would be involved in the granted of licences and permits under democratically decided criteria.

Steven.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 35 min 47 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
revol68 wrote:
i mean if they decided they were going to keep the arms all to themselves and stage some sort of coup, im sure the local commune/soviet would ahve something to say. And im sure they'd not be to good at shooting when they've not eaten in a week.

Well yeah but the point is whoever controls the guns can get whatever food they want - the Bolsheviks weren't too handy with the horticulture but they still ate pretty well.

But yeah agree re: licenses. Like no fascists, former businessmen or sex offenders allowed etc.

catch's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 36 min ago. Offline
Joined: 7-02-06

If gun control increases in the US, the trade would simply go underground and lots of people the control was aimed at would maintain ownership. Same as all the kitchen knives that turn up in amnesties here.

In the UK, I'm pretty happy with there being gun control, as long as the police don't get guns as standard either. That's going out as we speak, so I'm more interested in stopping the police getting guns than anyone else at the moment - what with Harry Stanley and de Menezes.

A libertarian communist mate in the US (stopped calling himself an anarchist ten years before this site), owns several guns, partly because he lives in a part of the US where lots of very right wing people also own guns, partly because bears, literally, shit in his woods.

User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 20-09-03

haven't gun deaths in the uk gone up since they banned handguns? as goldie looking chain say "guns don't kill people, rappers do!"

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
John. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
i mean if they decided they were going to keep the arms all to themselves and stage some sort of coup, im sure the local commune/soviet would ahve something to say. And im sure they'd not be to good at shooting when they've not eaten in a week.

Well yeah but the point is whoever controls the guns can get whatever food they want - the Bolsheviks weren't too handy with the horticulture but they still ate pretty well.

But yeah agree re: licenses. Like no fascists, former businessmen or sex offenders allowed etc.

well if the gun store collective formed themselves into an elitist vanguard party aiming to establish a state im sure some people would have something to say. of course why the fuck would someone in charge of gun permits wish to do this is beyond me.

Steven.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 35 min 47 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
revol68 wrote:
well if the gun store collective formed themselves into an elitist vanguard party aiming to establish a state im sure some people would have something to say. of course why the fuck would someone in charge of gun permits wish to do this is beyond me.

You're deliberately being obtuse here - cut it out!

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

are you deliberately putting forward arguments from a 15 year old ANarkIst!!!111!!1 mindset.

Steven.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 35 min 47 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
revol68 wrote:
are you deliberately putting forward arguments from a 15 year old ANarkIst!!!111!!1 mindset.

It's not a 15 year-old ancircle Arkist mindset to say that if you have a small group of people in charge of all the arms in society (NOT the licenses as you later decided you meant, then started talking about instead of arms to make my argument look silly), then that can cause problems.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

what sort of retard would imagine there would be some sort of overarching "gun collective"?

Thats the kind of think catch would use as a critique of anarcho syndicalism. wink

Lazy Riser's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 34 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6-05-05

Hi

I’m quite tempted by the idea that gun control is anti-working class, sort of like the Black Panthers’ position.

Loosening up gun control laws in the EU would certainly separate the men from the boys at those G8 protests, not to mention throwing out time in chav-town.

From where I’m standing, as tempted by the idea of my own AK as I am, I think more gun control in the States would be progressive for the international working class.

As for defending ourselves from armed reactionary and anti-social elements, I think I could live with a democratic professional military and an elected armed police.

Peace and Love. Sorry for dragging up an old post.

Chris

catch's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 36 min ago. Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
revol68 wrote:
what sort of retard would imagine there would be some sort of overarching "gun collective"?

Thats the kind of think catch would use as a critique of anarcho syndicalism. :wink:

grin

Steven.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 35 min 47 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
revol68 wrote:
what sort of retard would imagine there would be some sort of overarching "gun collective"?

You, I thought

tongue

dot
User offline. Last seen 24 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 21-08-05

this seems obvious, but gun control is bad.

more power to the state, anyone? it's just one more way that people are taught we can't solve our own problems.

and as has been pointed out already, it's the culture that is the problem, not the guns.

there's some interesting fundamental issue here about life and death, and how insulated we are (in the states certainly) from actual clear consequences. it's one reason why the abortion issue is interesting too, the idea that yes, we can kill, that death is a part of making choices in this world... but maybe that's getting too meta.

reminds me of "nature-lovers" who are part of the polarity of nature is good vs. nature brutal in tooth and claw (i'm probably butchering that quotation).

again, it seems like industrialized life is so much about mystifying the fact that we are animals.

User offline. Last seen 15 min 14 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
revol68 wrote:
well when i said democratic structures i was kind of imagining they would be involved in the granted of licences and permits under democratically decided criteria.

fairy nuff.

circle A red n black star

Lazy Riser's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 34 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6-05-05

Hi

I’m pretty sure the U.S. government gains more power by capitulating to the gun lobby than it does by antagonising it. A society that is habitually armed is not a sign of a working class full of confidence and optimism, rising to implement a programme of direct democracy and poverty elimination.

When U.S. style gun culture is presented in a positive light, it does make it harder to minimize the risk of firearms being let off by school children and the mentally disordered.

Love

Chris

dot
User offline. Last seen 24 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 21-08-05
Quote:
I’m pretty sure the U.S. government gains more power by capitulating to the gun lobby than it does by antagonising it.

i don't think the status quo/state (which cannot be limited to the govt) gives much of a shit whether guns are legal or not. much in the way that illegal drugs make money and legal drugs make money. (you made a comment re: porn along those lines, didn't you?)

Quote:
When U.S. style gun culture is presented in a positive light,

who was doing that?

are you chris day, by any chance?

User offline. Last seen 3 years 6 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 25-08-05
dot wrote:
this seems obvious, but gun control is bad.

more power to the state, anyone? it's just one more way that people are taught we can't solve our own problems.

and as has been pointed out already, it's the culture that is the problem, not the guns.

no, it's the culture, combined with the fact that it has access to huge amounts of heavy weaponry that's the problem. getting rid of the guns is a pretty good short term solution.

Quote:
there's some interesting fundamental issue here about life and death, and how insulated we are (in the states certainly) from actual clear consequences. it's one reason why the abortion issue is interesting too, the idea that yes, we can kill, that death is a part of making choices in this world... but maybe that's getting too meta.

a lot of people don't consider abortion killing.

Lazy Riser's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 34 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6-05-05

Hi

Quote:
who was doing that?

I was, for a start, with my Panthers point. You were too, by saying that gun control was bad and would increase state power. The impression I get from our news is that the American right (NRA etc) really despise gun control.

Having said that, I’m a fan of some NRA types, like Hunter S. Thompson and Charlton Heston, who I can’t really accept as a rightist. Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, fantastic.

Isn’t supplying a locale with cheap guns a good way of destabilising it? Didn’t the CIA pull something off in Norman Manley’s Jamaica along those lines?

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep01/jamaica.html

Quote:
you made a comment re: porn along those lines, didn't you?

Don’t think so, but whatever’s cool with me.

Quote:
are you chris day, by any chance

Is he good? Would you give him money? If so, then yes.

Best wishes

LR

888
888's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 hours 47 min ago. Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
revol68 wrote:
the problem with that theory is that it's not 1794 and the state is much more than armed groups of men. Surely we would seek to have demorcatic structures for the control of firearms, instead of this bourgeois individulist shit about the "right to bear arms".

Anarchism starts off from individualism and builds up to communism. I dislike it when anarchists use individualist as a bad word. The individual comes before the collective, just as the collective comes before the federation. That's the meaning of "from the bottom up". This brings up the question of what should be an individual's right to decide and what should be the collective's. In certain collectives in Spain, members had to apply to a transport comittee to have permission to use a vehicle to visit another area - definitely a bad thing.

I should think that in an anarchist society (post revolution) everyone could easily be trusted to have their own guns... not that there'd be much need for them.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

the individual does not exist before society, that is liberal bourgeois nonsense. the production of an individual requires a wider society. Society of course is not independent from the actions of individuals. And im sorry but you can't compare rural Spain in 1936 during a civil war to what a post revolutionary ideal would be like, im sure there were quite good reasons for such a decree.

888
888's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 hours 47 min ago. Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
revol68 wrote:
the individual does not exist before society, that is liberal bourgeois nonsense. the production of an individual requires a wider society. Society of course is not independent from the actions of individuals. And im sorry but you can't compare rural Spain in 1936 during a civil war to what a post revolutionary ideal would be like, im sure there were quite good reasons for such a decree.

Maybe, but I detected a hint of everything being up to the collective and people not being independent enough in certain of the descriptions of the libertarian collectives in Gaston Leval's book. I think there were still ways to increase individual freedom at no loss to everyone else.

Of course the individual does exist before society, in the sense that the right to secede is supreme in anarchism (see Bakunin). Anyway I explained what I mean by "from the bottom up".

Anyway my take on gun control in the current society is that it should be minimised, I can see the pragmatic issue of reducing accidents (control won't reduce crime) but can't abide strengthening the state. 15 year old anarchy rulez side note: I had the pleasure of firing an AK47 at an anarchist social a few days ago grin

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

well im afraid i don't accept the right to secede as a premise of anarchism. It might be useful in 99% of situations but it is not a central premise.

User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
888 wrote:
I had the pleasure of firing an AK47 at an anarchist social a few days ago grin

that sounds like the sort of thing jack dreams of...

Steven.'s picture
User offline. Last seen 35 min 47 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
888 wrote:
In certain collectives in Spain, members had to apply to a transport comittee to have permission to use a vehicle to visit another area - definitely a bad thing.

Motor vehicles were very rare in 1936 spain though 888!