Guns and gun control.

Question

What is the opinion of the Anarchist community on guns? What do various different strands of anarchism say and think about the usefulness of guns as means and assurance of liberation and liberty? What do Anarchists generally think about gun control measures on the part of the state? Do any of you believe that free access to guns is important and is it desirable or detrimental? I personally feel that guns and gun ownership, in the hands of the people is an important part of becoming and maintaining individual liberty and both individual and collective autonomy. Even if a so called "right to keep and bare" can only exist within a statist setting, where "rights" are granted based upon conformity and submission to the state.

Comments

You're asking too many questions at once.

The idea that guns in and of themselves are a "means and assurance of liberation and liberty" is straight out of pro-state Second Amendment fundamentalists. Such an idea is based on the idea that there is a parity of firepower between agents of the state and civilians, which, by now is absurd. The idea that "liberty" can be safeguarded by having a few guns is the logic of small property owners afraid of looters.

Gun control measures, as legislative tactics, are supposed to be rejected by principled anarchists, but I'm sure you'll find plenty who believe that gun control is a good idea. This says more about unprincipled anarchists than it does about guns.

There's no such thing as "free access to guns" -- what are you talking about?

---

I would argue, that whilst the agents of the state are far more heavily armed than "civilians" in a revolutionary scenario a tradition of civilian armament would come in handy. Remember we are not necessarily talking about conventional warfare here. I suppose my view is that guns in the hands of civilians can work as a middle finger to the government. Furthermore the ability to defend oneself from both those other members of society who would potentially cause one harm and from the agents of the state, will enable the people to be less dependent upon state "protection", basically if you've got a few guns, you don't need to rely on the police of the state, you've taken away their excuse.

---

That's a fine set of sentiments, but has precious little to do with the way your formulated your initial question(s).

---

I also think that "gun control" is another act on the long long list of statist tyrannies. It is an attempt to control people, to weaken their ability to change their situation and to further subjugate them beneath the heal of the state. With extensive gun control on the part of the state, the people are defenseless against the state.

---

‘There's no such thing as "free access to guns"…’

There's not? So when guns show up in places like Chicago in such quantity and without *any* oversight that often people, mostly children, can just pick them up out of hiding places, or the trash, or receive half-broken firearms for pocket change, or even for free, that doesn't constitute free access? There may not be universal or legislated free access, but that's beside the point.

There's plenty of free access to guns because guns are more than just weapons, they're also a currency. They can get around like sand if the reigning powers in an embattled environment conspire to make that happen.

---

In areas of poverty and racial discrimination guns can be seen as causing a great deal of damage. However far more damage and harm is caused by the system of inequality and discrimination enforced under the state and created by the capitalist system. Guns in the hands of poor people are essential to their ability to defend themselves and to improving their situation.

---

you're on an anarchist site, so no one is going to argue about the harm caused by the state. but your comparative statement doesn't necessarily follow. how would you determine how to compare the kinds of harm caused by guns (a very concrete thing with lots of philosophical associations) and the state (a philosophical thing with lots of very concrete associations)?

or -- to put this another way:
how exactly are guns essential to poor people "to defend themselves and improve their situation"?

---

thanks for tagging, btw. i am going to take out some of the dashes so that it's not all one tag.
this will show as an edit on the question, but i'm not changing the question at all.

---

Poorer people are less socially mobile, in the current system, due to lower financial resources they are unable to access better education and thus are limited in their potential options to improve their situation i,e poor people can't get the best educations and so cannot get higher income jobs and there for are more dependent upon less "legal" means of making money. Poor people are more at risk of state oppression since they represent the most controlled masses and are least able to affect change in society, without the use of armed resistance.

---

I think you may have asked this question in an un answerable way. I could give you my opinion on guns or gun control but that would only be one person not a community and I don't think many will align on this topic especially when you take into account what lawrence brought up in the first comment.

I feel that in a world ruled by force you must be able to fight that force with equal strength or you have already lost. And to the liberals or pacifists, no great revolution or movement was won with only the use of non violence. Ill reference MLK since it is the anniversary of the march on washington. First off I don't consider this a win, but some do. Blacks still have 2 times the unemployment that of whites, same as in the 60's (i mention jobs only because that was the main focus of the march), not to mention blacks represent 40% of the prison population whilst only being 13% of the pop. Any how without the eminent threat of violence from the state troopers in the south during integration that wouldn't have succeeded, and if you aren't sure look at the south 50 years later. With out the diversity of tactics used by the black panthers, angela davis, and malcom X there would have been no threat, at least at first.

Obviously ideally, I would love to go back to a world of no guns. Maybe feuds or discrepancies could be solved by lacrosse or  just a few people scuffle with big sticks until one gives up like they do in papa new Guinea (maybe we don't have to eat the losers heart, but some argue this helps to prevent conflict. cuz honestly if you saw some bloke eat an-others heart would you want to mess with him?) Seeing as how we cant go back I feel that they will be useful to fight the state but (hopefully) unnecessary to fight a fellow collective in a post authoritative world. I agree with your last statement about the poor. although I would also add that affective change can not be achieved without the support of  the poor and the oppressed. Otherwise it will be just another bunch of white guys deciding the fate of the "free world."

---

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-cararra-an-anarchist-case-against-gun-control

Answer 1

No guns. Throw them all in the ocean and never mold a pistol more.