Anarchism and Gun control?

[(A)(_|]

I was just wondering if gun possession was allowed in an anarchistic society, and if I was for gun control, would that make me a statist? Doesn't gun control go under justifiable authority?

[Zanthorus]

What's wrong with guns? I agree that we should have better gun control though, proper stance and grip is essential :cool:

[Muzk]

You shouldn't give guns to total fuckwits like america does. (I still support guns though), but if its not for profit its for self-defense, which is a much better thing and gun control should be carried out by the democracy, y'know

[Tjis]

I think either everyone should be allowed to have them, or nobody. Letting just one group have guns creates a situation where this group has authority over everyone else.

Since it's unlikely that guns will disappear all of a sudden, everyone should be allowed to have them. But we should still create a society in which they become unnecessary.

[gorillafuck]

but if its not for profit its for self-defense, which is a much better thing
What the hell does that mean? Does selling guns for profit imply it's never for self defense, or removing the profit motive from guns makes them not be able to be used to attack people?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Firearms should be available to everyone.

[Durruti's Ghost]

As others have said, an anarchist/communist society should strive to eliminate the need for guns. However, this is likely an asymptotic goal--a goal that can merely be approached, not reached. As such, I believe that in order for an anarchist society to function, it would be necessary for the entirety of the population to have access to arms.

That said, I don't think being for gun control makes you "not an anarchist"--it would be perfectly possible, although IMO unwise, for an anarchist collective to ban possession of firearms as a condition of membership. If you support gun control by the bourgeois state, that's quite a bit more dodgy, since you would essentially be saying that the State should have guns and the workers shouldn't.

[Muzk]

What the hell does that mean? Does selling guns for profit imply it's never for self defense, or removing the profit motive from guns makes them not be able to be used to attack people?


That's just what I said. When there's no more need for profit, why give it to every single person you aren't even sure of that they can use a gun for self defense and not for vengeance or similar things.

So chill

[Sasha]

i think we had threads before on this.....

edit:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/views-gun-rightsi-t106750/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-control-t41885/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/guns-weapons-t14303/index.html

anyway:

Firearms should be available to everyone.

no they should not, they should be licesend as any other realy dangerous/life threathning object (like cars).

[Tjis]

no they should not, they should be licesend as any other realy dangerous/life threathning object (like cars).

Licensed by who?

[Sasha]

pre- or post-revolution?

[Tjis]

pre- or post-revolution?

post-revolution.
Also, what criteria would be used to decide whether someone gets a permit?

[Sasha]

post-revolution.

an ellected body, designated by the people to oversee gun possesion and control


Also, what criteria would be used to decide whether someone gets a permit?

not much difrent than an drivers license i would assume; the ability to use it safe, knowledge, practice etc etc.
previous misuse of weoponry or an history criminal violence would be ground for refusal and/or retraction.

[Tjis]

an ellected body, designated by the people to oversee gun possesion and control



not much difrent than an drivers license i would assume; the ability to use it safe, knowledge, practice etc etc.
previous misuse of weoponry or an history criminal violence would be ground for refusal and/or retraction.
I'm completely mystified.
So we'd elect people to make decisions for us. Those decisions would need to be enforced to.

Don't we then have a representative democratic state and a police force? How's that anarchist?

[bcbm]

from my cold, dead hands.

[Kovacs]

If social mechanisms of state control didn't lead to anomie and alienation, social fracturing and suchlike, gun control might not be necessary. And this lack of social incohesion must surely be a socialist aim?

[ellipsis]

Did anybody know I support gun ownership?

[(A)(_|]

I know that there is nothing inherently harmful or violent about gun possession, however the reason I was a bit skeptical about it was that I had many times vehemently defended gun control, moreover I always thought that by allowing gun possession, we would be increasing the probability of gun-induced killings. I'm not taking stands, just a bit confused because on the other hand, apart from the causative harmfulness of gun possession which is also the case with many other daily utilities, there is inherently nothing wrong with gun possession and I would definitely want to own one in a society where gangs and killing are rampant.


I'm completely mystified.
So we'd elect people to make decisions for us. Those decisions would need to be enforced to.

Don't we then have a representative democratic state and a police force? How's that anarchist?

I'm not speaking on his behalf of course, but I think what he means is that the people would decide the criteria and designate a body also by the people which would over-see the enforcement of these clauses, and this body would be accountable to the people.

[Tjis]

I'm not speaking on his behalf of course, but I think what he means is that the people would decide the criteria and designate a body also by the people which would over-see the enforcement of these clauses, and this body would be accountable to the people.

Thanks for explaining. Yes, in that case it'd be anarchist.
Although I still think it's the wrong thing to do, and it can't really really force anyone to not own a gun.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Did anybody know I support gun ownership?
no. no i did not :laugh:

i think firearms should be made publicly available. maybe something like a community armory. for "heavier" stuff incase of conflict, and a general allowance of semiautomatic firearms and shotguns. the community will ultimately decide on how to deal with firearms though. Pistols seem a bit more dangerous though because of their concealability. as for explosive, im very wary of that. things like grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and grenades seem VERY dangrous.

i would like to imagine that in order to possess weapons one should take an educational course on the use, safety, and maintainence of firearms administered by the community.

my proposition anyways.

[Raúl Duke]

I support public access to guns post-revolution.
An armed populace will be one of the safeguards of the revolution.

However, all the other details (licensing, etc, etc) I think should be decided by each commune or perhaps agreed upon by many (a federation of) communes.

[Comrade Anarchist]

i am against guns, but if in an anarchist society the community outlaws guns then the individual is being oppressed so you can not have gun control but if we liberate animals then hunting will be seen as wrong, if crime is being eliminated then there is no point in having them for defense. So people would have to give up their guns on their own, unless they somehow hurt society like by murder or such then the majority will take it from them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i am against guns, but if in an anarchist society the community outlaws guns then the individual is being oppressed so you can not have gun control but if we liberate animals then hunting will be seen as wrong, if crime is being eliminated then there is no point in having them for defense. So people would have to give up their guns on their own, unless they somehow hurt society like by murder or such then the majority will take it from them.

how is it possible to eliminate crime? economically caused crimes may be reduced. but exploitation of one by another for personal gain is a crime. people may still try to exploit others. this is why the members of the commune must have firearms, defense against exploitation.

just because the revolution is successful does not mean that all past ideologies will dissapear. Monarchists, primmies, and fascists still exist even with the progression of society and defeat of past govermnents. they may try to usurp the commune and bring it under their control. this is why the commune should maintain its own ability to resist. id think itd be unwise if a commune decided to get rid of all guns.

murderers would justifiably be tried by the commune and i would have to say i would agree with them being barred from ever being able to have a gun afterwards. that is limiting ones freedom but the murderer has abused someone elses freedom by killing them.

[syndicat]

The anarcho-syndicalist position has been that in a revolutionary situation revolutionary armed force needs to be in a militia controlled by the mass working class organizations, and thus in a revolutionary society as it emerges from such a situation, there would be a mass people's militia, accountable to the population. But this would not be a standing army. So it assumes widespread gun ownership.

Actually when the USA's present constitution was created, despite it being crafted by the elite, they still relied on a popular militia. That's why the USA has the Second Amendment that guarantees rights of the citizens to own guns. Later on the militia was nationalized into the Nationarl Guard, under control of the army. But the Second Amendment is still there...sort of a revolutionary conquest of an earlier era.

Liberals usually talk about the dangers of gun ownership. But in USA there are 70 million people owning guns but relatively few gun accidents considering that large number of gun owners. They also seem to be able to keep them away from their kids.

[Искра]

And how should we purge Stalinists and Trots without guns?

[nuisance]

And how should we purge Stalinists and Trots without guns?
Disrupt their organisation pre-revolution?

[Искра]

Disrupt their organisation pre-revolution?
Yeah, I know.
My post was more like a vicious trolling :)

I agree with syndicalist.
Weapons should be in the hands of working class and they'll organise militias or what ever they need when their community is under a threat.

[Psy]

how is it possible to eliminate crime? economically caused crimes may be reduced. but exploitation of one by another for personal gain is a crime. people may still try to exploit others. this is why the members of the commune must have firearms, defense against exploitation.

just because the revolution is successful does not mean that all past ideologies will dissapear. Monarchists, primmies, and fascists still exist even with the progression of society and defeat of past govermnents. they may try to usurp the commune and bring it under their control. this is why the commune should maintain its own ability to resist. id think itd be unwise if a commune decided to get rid of all guns.

murderers would justifiably be tried by the commune and i would have to say i would agree with them being barred from ever being able to have a gun afterwards. that is limiting ones freedom but the murderer has abused someone elses freedom by killing them.

If society provides abundance then crime would be only be caused by the mentally ill, epically since after a successfully world wide revolution it would mean the world revolutionary army be the world's most powerful army by far and if there is abundance not only does it mean that people have free access to the products of society by so would the revolutionary army could throw near infinite resources at crushing insurgences. For example a global revolutionary army could just bomb fascists living in the mountains to dust with thermometric bombs, meaning fascists would zero chances of disrupting a post-revolutionary world and the revolutionary army would have no problem slaughtered them without taking any casualties on their side (basically it would be the most one sidded fight if facists were stupid enough to pick fight a global revolutionary army after the revolutionary army crushed all the capitalists armies)

Okay so once there is world peace and no insurgence the world revolutionary army would mostly likely be disbanded but that would mean threats of insurgence would be mostly non-existent and even then the idea of taking up arms against society would be extremely illogical.

So basically I don't see crime being a major concern to a post-revolutionary world and there would be a phasing out of arms with most arms ending up in large armories that would simply store arms just encase, sure I support people getting weapons for defense but like I said I don't see crime being a big problem.

[whore]

pre revolution, supporting restriction on guns (to like, cops and army), is in no way pro socialist, it's not even pro gun control! Instead, it is pro elite!

post revolution, there is not going to be any body that will be able to prevent someone from having access to guns. end of story. anyone who wants a gun, will have access, not that there will be a huge need, but you know.

[Misanthrope]

What kind of just government will refuse citizens arms? None. The working class must be armed, before, during and after the revolution.

[Tifosi]

Think of the children :sneaky: how many times have you seen the headline "kids shoot up school"? almost always in America. I remember the first time I went into Wal-Mart in Flordia (fuck yea:laugh:) and went from small Chinese plastic cars section to the anti-aircraft guns section, I shat my pants as they just gave them out. The law is well outer dated, it was only put into place so farms and cow boys could "protect" "their" land from the native people. More people die by the gun in America than all of Europe put together and Iraq or Afganistan. I would guess that Anarchist would be against it as it make one person the master of another.

[Red Saxon]

A Message To Anti-Gun Leftist Comrades.
Are you fucking insane? Of course an anarchical society wouldn't ban guns, that would be against anarchy entirely.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Think of the children :sneaky: how many times have you seen the headline "kids shoot up school"? almost always in America. I remember the first time I went into Wal-Mart in Flordia (fuck yea:laugh:) and went from small Chinese plastic cars section to the anti-aircraft guns section, I shat my pants as they just gave them out. The law is well outer dated, it was only put into place so farms and cow boys could "protect" "their" land from the native people. More people die by the gun in America than all of Europe put together and Iraq or Afganistan. I would guess that Anarchist would be against it as it make one person the master of another.

If you say that normal individuals should not have access to guns, you say that the working class should not have access to guns. If you say that the working class should not have access to guns, you say that someone else should, because to be effective, a law must be enforced. That "someone" is the police force, the repressive arm of the bourgeois state. Advocacy for a ban on guns--and, by extension, lesser forms of gun control--is an anti-worker position because it solidifies the control of the means of repression by the bourgeoisie. You could argue that, in a revolutionary situation, the working class will simply storm the armories and seize the weapons of the military/police. However, you need to consider something first: what usually happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

If you say that normal individuals should not have access to guns, you say that the working class should not have access to guns. If you say that the working class should not have access to guns, you say that someone else should, because to be effective, a law must be enforced. That "someone" is the police force, the repressive arm of the bourgeois state. Advocacy for a ban on guns--and, by extension, lesser forms of gun control--is an anti-worker position because it solidifies the control of the bourgeoisie over the means of repression. You could argue that, in a revolutionary situation, the working class will simply storm the armories and seize the weapons of the military/police. However, you need to consider something first: what usually happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?

Have my fucking mutant babies.

[syndicat]

Think of the children :sneaky: how many times have you seen the headline "kids shoot up school"? almost always in America. I remember the first time I went into Wal-Mart in Flordia (fuck yea:laugh:) and went from small Chinese plastic cars section to the anti-aircraft guns section, I shat my pants as they just gave them out. The law is well outer dated, it was only put into place so farms and cow boys could "protect" "their" land from the native people. More people die by the gun in America than all of Europe put together and Iraq or Afganistan. I would guess that Anarchist would be against it as it make one person the master of another.


The idea that kids are constantly killing other kids is the impression that the corporate media give because they support gun control. They want the poliice to have a monopoly. But there are 70 million gun owners in the USA and relatively few gun accidents or kids getting their hands on guns.

[Communist Theory]

How can you have anarchy and not allow stuff?

[Psy]

How can you have anarchy and not allow stuff?

So after the task of the revolutionary army if finished do we just let troops take home heavy armaments? Can troops just take thermobaric bombs home for deer hunting, how about tactical nuclear missiles that wipe out whole city blocks being used for home defense?

Wouldn't it be logically to take away heavy armaments from the revolutionary army when they are disbanded and view them as means of production and not personal property that can be individually owned?

[Communist Theory]

What I was implying was that who would regulate whether or not people were allowed guns if there were laws detailing who could have and who couldn't have guns wouldn't the people be governed by the group enforcing the laws.
Oh and just to point out I don't think a soldier would be able to throw a thermobaric bomb in their little red wagon and store it in their garage or whatever not really a good point to base your argument on.

[ellipsis]

Check out a sweet zine by an anarchist(?) called politicians love gun control. (http://therevolutionscript.googlepages.com/politiansloveguncontrol)

[Psy]

What I was implying was that who would regulate whether or not people were allowed guns if there were laws detailing who could have and who couldn't have guns wouldn't the people be governed by the group enforcing the laws.

I was thinking more of society enforcing Marxism and using worker militias to re-liberate means of production that fall back in the hands of capitalists including means of military production like tanks. Meaning the workers militia would be braking down the door of gun nuts with heavy armaments not over gun regulation but over the classification of heavy armaments being means of production thus their ownership by individual would constitute the crime of stealing property of society.

Of course this would not apply to small arms but it would limit the fire power in the hands of individuals.



Oh and just to point out I don't think a soldier would be able to throw a thermobaric bomb in their little red wagon and store it in their garage or whatever not really a good point to base your argument on.If the means of military production is allowed to become private property then it would be possible, a solider would just have to also take position of a attack helicopter to fly it home and as a platform to drop at deer. Okay so it is extreme but what about depleted uranium auto-cannons?

[Communist Theory]

An Anarchist society wouldnt be enforcing Marxism but Anarchy but I think of having a militia enforcing the "rules" of Anarchy is an oxymoron. While I do understand the need for some order under Anarchy I see no need for weapons to be seized and held by a standing militia although I'm not saying that everybody ought to have a big ass piece of artillary to ward of the threat of government trying to control them I'm just trying to say that control by one person or a group of people over another person or group of people under Anarchy is foolish and in my view isn't Anarchy at all.

[Psy]

An Anarchist society wouldnt be enforcing Marxism but Anarchy but I think of having a militia enforcing the "rules" of Anarchy is an oxymoron. While I do understand the need for some order under Anarchy I see no need for weapons to be seized and held by a standing militia although I'm not saying that everybody ought to have a big ass piece of artillary to ward of the threat of government trying to control them I'm just trying to say that control by one person or a group of people over another person or group of people under Anarchy is foolish and in my view isn't Anarchy at all.

While true there would be the problem of after a armed world revolution of having to ensure heavy armaments don't become private property. Failure to do so would only result in the restoration of capitalism as war lords would have then have the firepower to occupy the means of production.

Also like I said it would be society protecting its property, the revolutionary army would own all heavy armaments in existence thus liberating its property from those that take away what the revolutionary army owns through it being responsible for the commons of heavy arms. In other words the second anyone builds something like a tank it would be the property of the revolutionary army even if it doesn't know it exists yet, thus it would have the right to launch assaults on the makers of heavy arms to take possession of the heavy arms.

[syndicat]

An Anarchist society wouldnt be enforcing Marxism but Anarchy but I think of having a militia enforcing the "rules" of Anarchy is an oxymoron. While I do understand the need for some order under Anarchy I see no need for weapons to be seized and held by a standing militia although I'm not saying that everybody ought to have a big ass piece of artillary to ward of the threat of government trying to control them I'm just trying to say that control by one person or a group of people over another person or group of people under Anarchy is foolish and in my view isn't Anarchy at all.


That is an extreme individualist viewpoint. Individualist anarchism and social anarchism have different views on this subject. From a social anarchist point of fiew, it is the masses of oppresed & exploited who take power over the places where they work and over society, and create a new social governance structure, rooted in direct democracy of assemblies, and extended to congresses. The militia must be accountable directly to the working class majority in a revolutionary situation or some other class will end up in control (as happened in the Communist revolutions).

Rules include such things as: you are not permitted to hire people as wage-slaves. You are not allowed to commit rape or engage in racist violence. Things of this sort would be illegal and the militia, if necessary, is available to enforce these kinds of things.

A libertarian socialist society is one where there is no dominating class, where we're equalizing the society in regard to relations between men and women and getting rid of other forms of inequality. It is NOT a society of "anything goes." That is a pure individualist conception. Libertarian socialism is a society based on democratic self-management, of work, of social affairs.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Rules include such things as: you are not permitted to hire people as wage-slaves. You are not allowed to commit rape or engage in racist violence. Things of this sort would be illegal and the militia, if necessary, is available to enforce these kinds of things.


i think that just answered a question i have been formulating over how law/will of the commune would be enforced.

[Bitter Ashes]

Wouldnt it be up to the invidivdual communities to deciede?

"Next on today's community agenda is a refferndum on whether X should be allowed to carry a firearm"

Direct democracy/Consensus prevails.

On the subject of enforcing community rules, again, that's up to the whole community to deciede, either through a sheriff system, or quite simply a number of volunteers when needed.

FYI my personal belief is that unless there's dangerous wildlife around (bears, tigers, "The Wolverines" (;)), etc) then there's no reason for an individual to own a firearm. Community owned caches that could be temporalily released should it be agreed upon are another matter, whether that's for defence of the community, or another community, or law enforcement where nessicary. Certainly not like 19th century Wild West.

[Psy]

FYI my personal belief is that unless there's dangerous wildlife around (bears, tigers, "The Wolverines" (;)), etc) then there's no reason for an individual to own a firearm. Community owned caches that could be temporalily released should it be agreed upon are another matter, whether that's for defence of the community, or another community, or law enforcement where nessicary. Certainly not like 19th century Wild West.
I don't see the harm in small arms being in the hands of individuals it only heavier arms that become a problem. There are times when people need protection when they are alone and individual having small arms makes mobilizing militias faster as it means the militia only has to go armories for heavier arms meaning most of the time armories can be safely sealed after the revolution since most the time a militia in a post revolution world would't need more then small arms.

[Bitter Ashes]

I don't see the harm in small arms being in the hands of individuals it only heavier arms that become a problem. There are times when people need protection when they are alone and individual having small arms makes mobilizing militias faster as it means the militia only has to go armories for heavier arms meaning most of the time armories can be safely sealed after the revolution since most the time a militia in a post revolution world would't need more then small arms.
No good can come of personal firearm ownership in my opinion. A community that relies on itself will already have suffient communication with each other to mobilise very quickly. Anyway, that's just my personal opinion, and I suppose it's not technically to do with the anarchist POV that the thread's askign about.

[Psy]

No good can come of personal firearm ownership in my opinion. A community that relies on itself will already have suffient communication with each other to mobilise very quickly. Anyway, that's just my personal opinion, and I suppose it's not technically to do with the anarchist POV that the thread's askign about.
And how would the community develop decent proficiency in firearms if they are locked up? If individuals have small arms it means more of the community would be proficient in using them, this wouldn't be a concern for heavier arms since there would be time to re-train a army in how to use heavier arms as the large threats that require heavy arms won't just come out of no where, for example the formation of armed capitalist terrorist group would be visible to communist world by the time they are a large enough threat to form a revolutionary army to crush them and the communist world could afford to wait a year to properly train a revolutionary army in how to use tanks, APCs, helicopters, machine guns, RPGs, motors, ect so they can totally overwhelm the capitalist terrorists with a properly trained revolutionary army since the army would be offensive force not the defensive (that would be the milita), meaning the revolutionary army would be the ones assulting the capitalist terrorist training camps while the milita would the ones stopping capitalist terroist strikes (in this example of capitalists forming terrorist cells in a post-revolution world).

Individuals having small arms means society can mobilize a effective defense in very short notice, so if a crazy person builds home made bombs society can get a armed milita mobilized very quickly and that milita would have good marksmenship (since they would have free access to small arms thus can train when ever they want) and have the ability to take down the crazy person before they hurt people without signfigantly endangers by-standards.

[Pogue]

Don't misunderstand the tone, this isn't directed at the OP but to anarchists:

How could anyone possibly say whether or not guns would be allowed in an anarchist society? How could anarchists answer that? Its not as though anarchists would be the ones setting the rules in an anarchist society is it. Guns would be allowed where and when people voted demcoratically to allow them.