Do we really need guns?

[IronFist17]

Do we really need weapons? Sure thing we use them only for range shooting but too many people die every year because of free gun ownership. Maybe it's time to ban firearms? It looks pretty obvious that a number of crimes will decrease drastically if the criminals won't be able to get guns. Sure thing there will be a black market but it can be easily controlled if guns can't be obtained legally.

[Q]

Two issues here:

1. Gun ownership tells only a small part of the story. The United States for example has a relatively high deathrate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate), ranking just under Mexico which has a virtual civil war going on between drug cartels. Then again Switzerland, where people keep their rifles from their militia duty (although they are converted to a semi-automat outside service), ranks significantly lower. This indicates that gun ownership in an of itself isn't the problem. The problem is social in nature.

2. Arguing for disarmament is effectively calling for strengthening the state, both because the population is disarmed and because the state is empowered to make sure it stays that way (using its monopoly on violence). For socialists this matters as it disarms the working class in its struggles, making the struggle for power a very bloody afair on our side of the class divide.

[Cliff Paul]

1. Gun ownership tells only a small part of the story. The United States for example has a relatively high deathrate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate), ranking just under Mexico which has a virtual civil war going on between drug cartels. Then again Switzerland, where people keep their rifles from their militia duty (although they are converted to a semi-automat outside service), ranks significantly lower. This indicates that gun ownership in an of itself isn't the problem. The problem is social in nature.

I'm not for or against gun control so I don't really have a stake in the matter but the Switzerland example isn't really that applicable. According to the FBI there were 8,855 gun related homicides in the US in 2012. Of that total, 6,371 were caused by handguns + 1,749 were "non-stated" gun fatalities. So less than 800 deaths were caused by other guns (rifles, shotguns, etc.). That's still a fairly high figure, but the problem seems to be more with handguns than with guns in general.

[BIXX]

Do we really need weapons? Sure thing we use them only for range shooting but too many people die every year because of free gun ownership. Maybe it's time to ban firearms? It looks pretty obvious that a number of crimes will decrease drastically if the criminals won't be able to get guns. Sure thing there will be a black market but it can be easily controlled if guns can't be obtained legally.

Who is gonna take the guns? The bourgeois state? Fuck that.

The proletarian state? Still fuck that.

Community militias? You mean, the police? Fuck that.

Disarmament is bullshit.

[cyu]

If the army is on your side, then you'll have guns. Would you tell them to disarm?

If the army is not on your side, then they'll use them against you. Do you need guns?

[Culicarius]

Coincidentally I have been questioning the necessity of guns and gun control laws since moving to the revolutionary left.

Living in the USA, my reaction was of course to restrict guns (possibly even a ban), get better healthcare out there for mental health and evaluate our violence-loving culture.

But now I question it a lot. And basically all my reasoning comes to, is that I think so long as we live under capitalism and states which exert violence on us (whether imperialism in other countries, or police within our communities) it makes sense for us to have guns. Plus I doubt whether a future overturning of capitalism is even possible without some period of violence. Even if that period is as short as a week.

I don't think the answer to the problem (homicide, theft, other crimes involving guns) is removing the guns, but rather look at the source.

I also heard somewhere (but never had the time to verify) that gun control laws (at least in the USA) has racist, anti-black origins. Not sure how true that is or not, but one of these days I want to look into it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Do we really need weapons? Sure thing we use them only for range shooting but too many people die every year because of free gun ownership. Maybe it's time to ban firearms? It looks pretty obvious that a number of crimes will decrease drastically if the criminals won't be able to get guns. Sure thing there will be a black market but it can be easily controlled if guns can't be obtained legally.

That does not make any sense.

The expected crime decrease is premised on people having no legal access to guns; but then you introduce an auxilliary premise, that banning guns will actually do something about the black market - which remains completely unsubstantiated. A mere claim, a wishful thinking perhaps.

What is it about strict gun control (e.g. criminalization of gun purchase) that makes the black market more easily controlled?

And in broader scope, I don't thin communists ought to trouble themselves about law&order type concerns. Not to say who gives a fuck about crime, far from it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes, yes we do.

...if we do get guns, however, don't give me one because I will likely use because I have scores to settle....I remember this kid who stole my star wars action figure back when...and I really, really am not over it yet.

I am a pretty good reason for gun control all on my own :)

[StromboliFucker666]

For now, definitely. In the future, hopefully not.

The reasons I say this are simple and even a moron can see my point.

1. Most people I know that have killed or used a gun for any other crime (I work with some people that have rather bad pasts) do not use a legal, registered gun to do the crime. They are much more likely to buy one illegally so it will not be as easy to trace if the police suspect them. (Police can usually tell the type of gun used by the bullet. If they suspect you and you have that kind of gun, good luck explaining that.)

2. What if violence is necessary? What if we actually have to take up arms against the bourgeois state? If we give them all our guns, we will not have guns to fight with unless we buy guns on the black market which would be more expensive than just not giving up guns to begin with. You could say this is contradictory to my first point however I will disagree. If we are fighting a war and taking up arms, we are not trying to avoid being caught. If you murder someone, you do not want to be seen or even traced to that person at all. If you are fighting a war, that doesn't matter. Survival and victory matter.


As for the future, I hope we can build a society where guns will not be necessary except for recreational purposes and gun safety would be taught very well in those cases. That said, keeping guns would be okay because an untreated mentally ill person or something may get violent and hurt someone. Or another wild card like that.

[John Nada]

Do we really need weapons?In the here and now, many do need weapons, including guns.
Sure thing we use them only for range shooting but too many people die every year because of free gun ownership.No, many people use to hunt for food. Not that common in urban areas, but a common source of food in many rural areas. Though guns aren't a deus ex machina like the movies, they're also used for self-defense.
Maybe it's time to ban firearms? It looks pretty obvious that a number of crimes will decrease drastically if the criminals won't be able to get guns. Sure thing there will be a black market but it can be easily controlled if guns can't be obtained legally.Presumably this is about the US. In the US, there's enough legal guns to arm every single person in the country. Being the most powerful imperialist-capitalist state, the US is also the largest supplier of guns in the world. There is also very large military/police/security forces in the US with lots of guns that are used against workers, who sure as hell will be exempt from a gun ban. I do not consider giving the military, police, and private security/mercenaries a monopoly on violence a victory for the workers and oppressed peoples. They aren't that hard to make with the right tools. De jure bans on guns in the US(which would require an amendment) would likely reduce the number of suicides by guns(by far the largest type of gun deaths in the US) but eliminating guns altogether is a pipe dream under imperialist capitalism.

[khad]

Lol, as if handguns are going to offer more than even token resistance to the state if it wants to fuck you up.

Go big or go home. (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ksb56dfT4A0/TuefAfgEKNI/AAAAAAAACMY/khM-KTWwSUg/s400/ied-chart.png)

[StromboliFucker666]

Lol, as if handguns are going to offer more than even token resistance to the state if it wants to fuck you up.

Go big or go home. (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ksb56dfT4A0/TuefAfgEKNI/AAAAAAAACMY/khM-KTWwSUg/s400/ied-chart.png)

Assuming we all have handguns...

[Ele'ill]

Lol, as if handguns are going to offer more than even token resistance to the state if it wants to fuck you up.

Go big or go home. (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ksb56dfT4A0/TuefAfgEKNI/AAAAAAAACMY/khM-KTWwSUg/s400/ied-chart.png)

jesus christ khad :lol:

[PhoenixAsh]

Nope. Still not sane enough to own a gun.

I thought about it a lot and I couldn't sleep. So I compiled a short 20 page list of people who I feel wronged me to the point I feel I am warranted post factual self defense or something.

I already have that kid who stole my star wars action figure. But there is also the guy who I suspect poured ink over my middle school agenda. At least I think it was him... anyway...he looked funny at me so...yeah...he definitely has it coming. Then there is that girl who got me fired. The guy at the cash registry who short changed me. The guy in traffic who cut me off that one time (I knew writing down the number was a good idea)...There was this random rude lady on the street.

The people at the Internet providers service desk. The plumber. The neighbors dog. The neighbors other dog. The neighborhood cat. The neighborhood kids except the one living at 11b because she is very nice and once when I was sick said I could borrow her teddybear (<- that really happened by the way) ...The rest of them we could do without.

And there is the farmer....across the other street....with his cows. All of them have got to go to

[cyu]

Remember, there are always people less sane than you in the army and police force.

Don't really want to list examples of history's atrocities...

[khad]

jesus christ khad :lol:
The point is that the only reason why the state lets civilians carry guns in the first place is because they offer virtually ZERO credible threat to the state. The primary purpose for personal firearms is defending your private property from random assholes who want to take your shit. And hunting, for those who live out in the backcountry.

All of this makes this thread some of the worst internet revolutionary masturbation I've ever seen. If any one of you were actually serious about breaking the "state's monopoly on violence" (:rolleyes:), you'd actually be talking about measures that actually do matter in terms of asymmetrically confronting the technical capabilities of a modern state. But no one here is talking about legalizing semtex and ATGMs for general use, now, are they?

I'm not pro or anti-gun, as I simply don't feel that it's enough of a concern to truly matter. However, I do wish to point out just how much of this debate revolves around entirely false premises.

[Ele'ill]

point and shoot has been assimilated by empire as the acceptable form of ultraviolence, if you want to get your neo-swagger back it's in a dark night and the fountainous embrace of their blood pumping out of your mouth and down your neck

[Ele'ill]

The point is that the only reason why the state lets civilians carry guns in the first place is because they offer virtually ZERO credible threat to the state. The primary purpose for personal firearms is defending your private property from random assholes who want to take you shit. And hunting, for those who live out in the backcountry.

All of this makes this thread some of the worst internet revolutionary masturbation I've ever seen. If any one of you were actually serious about breaking the "state's monopoly on violence" (:rolleyes:), you'd actually be talking about measures that actually do matter in terms of asymmetrically confronting the technical capabilities of a modern state. But no one here is talking about legalizing semtex and ATGMs for general use, now, are they?

I'm not pro or anti-gun, as I simply don't feel that it's enough of a concern to truly matter. However, I do wish to point out just how much of this debate revolves around entirely false premises.

my post was in agreement with you it's just not very often someone makes legit 'oh hey revolutionary terrorism' posts

[Cliff Paul]

my post was in agreement with you it's just not very often someone makes legit 'oh hey revolutionary terrorism' posts

probably because that's not allowed on the site

[cyu]

1. Disarm ourselves

2. Stop voting

3. ...

4. End of capitalism

[StromboliFucker666]

probably because that's not allowed on the site
If we want to actually do something like that, we should either not discuss it online discuss it on a deep web site

[khad]

my post was in agreement with you it's just not very often someone makes legit 'oh hey revolutionary terrorism' posts
Yes, I got that you got it. I felt I should clarify in any event, though, for those who lack an online sarcasm sense.

You know, back in the day, the crossbow was considered a dastardly assassin's tool. The Catholic Church tried to ban it.
The weapons of war change, but it's funny how all modern arguments for gun rights stem from the outmoded 18th century logic of the 2nd Amendment.

[Ele'ill]

If we want to actually do something like that, we should either not discuss it online discuss it on a deep web site

stop giving terrible advice, nobody is talking about it outside of as a theoretical tool to further discuss gun control and the logic behind it

[cyu]

I'm of the opinion that if you can't discuss things in front of known spies, it's not worth discussing, since there will always be spies you don't know about. The closer you are to overthrowing the system, the more spies you can expect.

[Cliff Paul]

I'm of the opinion that if you can't discuss things in front of known spies, it's not worth discussing, since there will always be spies you don't know about. The closer you are to overthrowing the system, the more spies you can expect.

Whatever you cool headed logician

[StromboliFucker666]

stop giving terrible advice, nobody is talking about it outside of as a theoretical tool to further discuss gun control and the logic behind it

I know no one was being serious! And if you knew how to read you would notice I said IF.


I was also being theoretical!

[cyu]

If you truly believe your ideology is correct, you would in fact welcome spies, since it just gives you the chance to convert them ^^

[khad]

ok


All of this makes this thread some of the worst internet revolutionary masturbation I've ever seen.

[cyu]

I like to joke that the main difference between a criminal and an anarchist is that the criminal breaks laws in secret and doesn't want anyone to know, while the anarchist breaks laws in public and wants everyone to know.

[Bala Perdida]

If I can't get a gun I always have a knife. Crazy world out here.

[Sewer Socialist]

How do you even fight with a knife? I wouldn't really know what to do with one, or against one.

[StromboliFucker666]

step 1: pull out knife

Step 2:run towards person

step 3: stab the person when you get close

step 4: pray to Stalin that they don't also have a knife

step 5: profit


(I AM JOKING I AM JOKING DO NOT TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AND GET YOUR FEELINGS HURT)

[cyu]

Always fight with the longest range weapon you have - a broom handle, a drone, an ICBM, propaganda (which reaches across centuries ;) ).

[Islam Muslim Muhammad]

I think that this conversation has merit and that Q has a valid point. Proletarian mobs armed with hunting rifles and shotguns might be able to stand their ground against M1 columns, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and 155mm self-propelled howitzers if they chant certain Marx & Engels passages 99 times. The trick is to figure out which passages to chant. A difficult trick admittedly, but all good things are difficult to accomplish.

And to the detractors(Mari3l, khad) I say this: la fortune sourit aux audacieux.

[cyu]

Capitalists can be taken out in the same way Syriza has been taken out. Both are structured like pyramids. The base of the pyramid is large, and can only be overwhelmed with a large force. However, the base obeys the top. The top of the pyramid is small - going after that with bribery, blackmail, or intimidation is much easier.

[John Nada]

We need an amendment that gives people the right to fertilizers with the right NPK. Way more useful to feeding the proletariat than arms.

[cyu]

No matter how good technology gets, as long as a large gap exists between rich and poor, then the technology will be used to produce stuff for the rich, while the poor get next to nothing.

[Working Class Hero]

The problem is that all the reactionary redneck peckerwoods have the guns, at least in my country. We need more people on the left to arm themselves, because if shit hits the fan, the right wingers are going to have all the firepower.

[Ele'ill]

The closer you are to overthrowing the system, the more spies you can expect.

The state wants to stop it from even being a thing instead of waiting for it to be a thing so they can then use their intelligence agencies. The point of my post anyways was there are no private corners within technology, you cannot talk about technological loopholes in the state's systems which do exist but are well funded and staffed and then expect that you are going to fly under the radar from your basement because you are using a 'deep web forum' from a connection that you feel is anonymous. I don't know about the 'spies listening' statement as if being brave and also very stupid will get you a spot in heaven after you die in prison or emerge some decades later back into an even more broken world and left with nothing.

[Ele'ill]

I mean I'm not trying to be all rigid about security culture which is a stupid phrase that applies to a stupid scene most of the time but when stuff gets flippantly posted on here like it has it kind of is presupposing that the praxis being discussed whether diffuse insurgency or formally organized tanks in the streets has never been and never will be a lived experience.

[cyu]

you die in prison or emerge some decades later back into an even more broken world and left with nothing.

If you're in prison, convert the guards and prisoners to your side and start the revolution from there. Better yet, convert the judge and lawyers during your trial, or the people who would arrest you before the order is even given. If you don't think you're persuasive enough, that's OK - you're new to this revolution thing and haven't been through a successful revolution yet ;)

[Armchair Partisan]

The point is that the only reason why the state lets civilians carry guns in the first place is because they offer virtually ZERO credible threat to the state. The primary purpose for personal firearms is defending your private property from random assholes who want to take your shit. And hunting, for those who live out in the backcountry.

All of this makes this thread some of the worst internet revolutionary masturbation I've ever seen. If any one of you were actually serious about breaking the "state's monopoly on violence" (:rolleyes:), you'd actually be talking about measures that actually do matter in terms of asymmetrically confronting the technical capabilities of a modern state. But no one here is talking about legalizing semtex and ATGMs for general use, now, are they?

I'm not pro or anti-gun, as I simply don't feel that it's enough of a concern to truly matter. However, I do wish to point out just how much of this debate revolves around entirely false premises.

IMO, there is one advantage to ensuring that the populace is armed, even if only with handguns and small fry weapons that can't really be used to challenge the state on an open battlefield. That advantage would be morale. An armed populace would be more confident of its ability to defend itself, and in asymmetric warfare, even small arms could help a lot anyway. Reminds me of a story I read about the Japanese Type 99 rifle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99_rifle) The Japanese military put anti-aircraft sights on them so that the troops could use them to fire at enemy planes. Small arms fire against planes is, of course, very ineffective, but the story alleged that the sights were installed simply to make the soldiers more confident in the face of enemy aircraft - to make them feel they have some sort of recourse against them even in the absence of an actual anti-aircraft battery that's worth a damn. And hey, Imperial Japan is a pretty good authority on instilling morale. Not sure if the same thing applies to workers armed with handguns, but... maybe?

[Bala Perdida]

How do you even fight with a knife? I wouldn't really know what to do with one, or against one.If the person attacking you doesn't have one, or doesn't expect you have one, then that's great news. Hopefully they don't know and they just call the quits lol.

[Bala Perdida]

Also, this might help my knife case.

http://www.sparrowmedia.net/2014/08/luke-odonovan-sentenced-to-10-years/

[ComradeAllende]

A lot of the anti-gun control arguments remind me of the conservative talking-point that says we need guns to fight federal tyranny. Now, I'm not necessarily against the idea of violent revolution, but I doubt that guns (no matter the caliber) alone are going to suffice against the US military, which deploys drones, heavy battle tanks, and mobile rocket-launcher platforms. Plus I think that a violent revolution will end badly in a "liberal democracy" like the US unless it has supporters from across the racial/geographical divide. The Black Panthers didn't last long (in part) because everybody thought they were a bunch of inner-city hoods and Communists; their guns didn't count for shit in the end.

But to the point, a significant number of gun owners are rural and suburban whites (not a traditional bastion of the revolutionary left). With the recent rise in right-wing militias, its more likely that these gun owners will fight against a left-wing insurgency, either by joining these extremist groups or forming more moderate ones. Either way, they'll be like the Freikorps; a large paramilitary force doing the bidding of the federal government that might swing toward fascism or some form of right-wing populism.

[BIXX]

How do you even fight with a knife? I wouldn't really know what to do with one, or against one.

Honestly it is kinda dependent on you skill level. Like, as someone who I wouldn't call terribly great with a knife, a lot of what I would be doing is reactive, however the higher your skill level the higher probability that you'll be able to go on any sort of attack.

[Zoop]

How do you even fight with a knife? I wouldn't really know what to do with one, or against one.

There are a lot of "self-defence" systems out there which teach you how to use a knife and how to defend against one. The truth is, reality isn't choreographed, and it is almost impossible to defend yourself against a knife. It's even more difficult to get away without serious injuries. There are no skilled knife fighters; the idea of the skilled knife fighter is based on a misunderstanding of how actual knife "fights" go down.

The only competent way to use a knife is to go nuts with it, and that's what someone wielding a knife is going to do anyway. There are absolutely no skills to learn when it comes to knife "fighting". Just stab and slash.

Look on the "lies about knife fighting" page on nononsenseselfdefense.com if you're interested in learning more about it.

[Wyboth]

The proletarian state? Still fuck that.

Community militias? You mean, the police? Fuck that.

Disarmament is bullshit.
Why are the last two bullshit?

[BIXX]

There are a lot of "self-defence" systems out there which teach you how to use a knife and how to defend against one. The truth is, reality isn't choreographed, and it is almost impossible to defend yourself against a knife. It's even more difficult to get away without serious injuries. There are no skilled knife fighters; the idea of the skilled knife fighter is based on a misunderstanding of how actual knife "fights" go down.

The only competent way to use a knife is to go nuts with it, and that's what someone wielding a knife is going to do anyway. There are absolutely no skills to learn when it comes to knife "fighting". Just stab and slash.

Look on the "lies about knife fighting" page on nononsenseselfdefense.com if you're interested in learning more about it.

Except just cause reality isn'tchereographed doesn't mean there aren't some basic shit (ways to pass their knife, waysto counter) you can learn that greatly expand your ability to survive a knife attack. "Going nuts with it" is acutely stupid.

[BIXX]

Why are the last two bullshit?

Because they are both attacks on autonomy.

[Zoop]

Except just cause reality isn'tchereographed doesn't mean there aren't some basic shit (ways to pass their knife, waysto counter) you can learn that greatly expand your ability to survive a knife attack. "Going nuts with it" is acutely stupid.

Going nuts with it is stupid? I'm sorry but that's the best way to attack, precisely because your moves are unpredictable, and it's impossible for them to defend against it. That's exactly what people do when they want to kill you with a knife. It's realistic. People aren't going to be calm with a knife and attack you in predictable ways. That IS stupid.

Perhaps you dislike it because it isn't choreographed, and you know you won't be able to defend against it, thus breaking your illusion of safety?

People think reality is a Steven Seagal film. It isn't.

[khad]

Except just cause reality isn'tchereographed doesn't mean there aren't some basic shit (ways to pass their knife, waysto counter) you can learn that greatly expand your ability to survive a knife attack. "Going nuts with it" is acutely stupid.
This would make sense in a dueling culture where you're given time to square up against your opponent and get yourself ready. This is the reason why swordfighting in medieval and renaissance Europe was mainly a civilian practice with relatively limited battlefield application. (You can actually see this in the gradual building up of the handguard in later medieval and renaissance swords, as swords declined in importance relative to polearms and firearms. In earlier periods military swords had pretty minimal guards, since it was all about staying in formation and stabby stab stab.)

In today's culture, there is no room for the courtesy of a duel. There aren't knife "fights" per se; there are knife assassinations. Who ever draws first and gets more lethal hits on the other guy first wins.

I always like to refer to this video where cops armed with rifles are pwned by a guy wielding a knife. They even shoot him fatally, but he's still able to chase down another victim while bleeding out.

(skip to about the 7 min mark)

75RTkGbiJpk

You don't "defend" against a knife. You neutralize the threat before it becomes one or get the hell out.

[Cliff Paul]

There are ways of increasing your ability to confront an attacker wielding a knife or to win a knife "fight" which will at best, give you a marginally better chance at "winning". On the other hand, all the knife training hoop-la probably has a better chance of making you become overconfident in your ability to engage in those situations, and thus significantly lowering your chance at surviving them.

[Wyboth]

Because they are both attacks on autonomy.
Well, being murdered by someone with a gun is an attack on my autonomy. Which is more important: the right for someone to have a gun, or the right for someone to not be murdered?

I'm not saying nobody will be murdered if guns are illegal, or even that nobody will be murdered by guns. I am saying it makes it far harder to do, especially if we are very strict with a gun prohibition law.

[BIXX]

Going nuts with it is stupid? I'm sorry but that's the best way to attack, precisely because your moves are unpredictable, and it's impossible for them to defend against it. That's exactly what people do when they want to kill you with a knife. It's realistic. People aren't going to be calm with a knife and attack you in predictable ways. That IS stupid.

Perhaps you dislike it because it isn't choreographed, and you know you won't be able to defend against it, thus breaking your illusion of safety?

People think reality is a Steven Seagal film. It isn't.

No, I dislike it because it's fucking stupid. Unless your attacker is a rabbit it will get you killed. That isn't to say that you should be memorizing choreography, but that there are some basic strategies that will help you get away alive. But I can 100% guarantee that if you "go crazy with it" there will be two dead people, not one.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that a boxer or MMA fighter wouldn't do well in the real world because there are no rules but in fact they consistently do well in real world fights. Part of it is indeed fight compusure but also the knowledge or being able to see this or that attack heading their way then being able to respond in a responsible manner. It is the same with a fight that involves a knife: you don't wanna get involved in any fancy handwork, but you should have a basic defense in place. That does make the difference between living and dying- if your attacker is hellbent on hurting you.

Regarding "the illusion of safety"- the classes I've taken have done far more to remove that barrier than build it. The whole discussion revolves around how you're gonna lose blood or skin.


This would make sense in a dueling culture where you're given time to square up against your opponent and get yourself ready. This is the reason why swordfighting in medieval and renaissance Europe was mainly a civilian practice with relatively limited battlefield application. (You can actually see this in the gradual building up of the handguard in later medieval and renaissance swords, as swords declined in importance relative to polearms and firearms. In earlier periods military swords had pretty minimal guards, since it was all about staying in formation and stabby stab stab.)

In today's culture, there is no room for the courtesy of a duel. There aren't knife "fights" per se; there are knife assassinations. Who ever draws first and gets more lethal hits on the other guy first wins.

I always like to refer to this video where cops armed with rifles are pwned by a guy wielding a knife. They even shoot him fatally, but he's still able to chase down another victim while bleeding out.

(skip to about the 7 min mark)

75RTkGbiJpk

You don't "defend" against a knife. You neutralize the threat before it becomes one or get the hell out.

While there are some points in your post I agree with (no more knife fights), if you're saying that learning basic and adaptable techniques you're going to be a lot safer. Through in some decent trainign from a non-edged fighting system and you're well on your way to being alive. This isn't talking about duels but shit that the Navy SEALS train in, which most assuredly is not "go crazy with it".

[Zoop]

No, I dislike it because it's fucking stupid. Unless your attacker is a rabbit it will get you killed. That isn't to say that you should be memorizing choreography, but that there are some basic strategies that will help you get away alive. But I can 100% guarantee that if you "go crazy with it" there will be two dead people, not one.
Wait, I'm talking about going nuts when you're the attacker, not going nuts when you're defending. Why is it "fucking stupid"? It's a far superior approach, and one that you actually see in the real world. Demonstrably, it is effective.


Your argument is equivalent to saying that a boxer or MMA fighter wouldn't do well in the real world because there are no rules but in fact they consistently do well in real world fights. Part of it is indeed fight compusure but also the knowledge or being able to see this or that attack heading their way then being able to respond in a responsible manner. It is the same with a fight that involves a knife: you don't wanna get involved in any fancy handwork, but you should have a basic defense in place. That does make the difference between living and dying- if your attacker is hellbent on hurting you.
They aren't comparable. Hand to hand combat involves skill, whereas knife "fighting" doesn't. Your best option is to flee. If you can't for any reason, try and use any weapon to neutralise the threat (pepper spray etc.), and then flee. If you're going in with your bare hands, expect to get seriously injured or killed, unless you're incredibly, incredibly lucky.

Regarding "the illusion of safety"- the classes I've taken have done far more to remove that barrier than build it. The whole discussion revolves around how you're gonna lose blood or skin.

That's how they make their money. They know that 100% safety guaranteed promises sell, because people want to feel safe, and know that they can handle any encounter. Unfortunately, that shit isn't realistic but nobody wants to hear that.

These "self-defence" situations involve someone attacking in a choreographed and predictable way, then stopping (surprise surprise) in order to allow the teacher to counter attack.
That's the sort of shit you get told is reflective of realistic encounters.

[Sewer Socialist]

Well, I recognize the difficulty in a system which is rarely practiced when it counts, or when you're relying a specific response. Karate and traditional (Japanese) Jiu-Jitsu have this shortcoming.

But these criticisms apply to all technique. Like Placenta Cream said, someone isn't going to cautiously hold an orthodox boxing stance when they decide they would like to fight you, and yet MMA is a good set of skills in any unarmed fight.

What's the difference? I don't really know what Kali / Eskrima are exactly, but why do they fail, and why is it counterproductive to have ANY technique in knifefighting, if technique is useful in other sorts of fighting?

Clearly, if someone can quickly draw an unseen knife and stab you in vulnerable areas multiple times, defending it would require seeing that coming, which may be impossible, but http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/ describes scenarios in which the weapon is seen before the attack; the "prison yard rush," for example. Why is it impossible to do anything to defend that?

Much of that website's reasoning is "it's illegal", and that's true, and that website does have another good piece of advice, and it's to run away if possible. But there are times we might like to break the law, or it is necessary to stay

edit - You answered a lot of this while I was typing. You have a good point; pepper spray is probably the best way to disable someone with a knife.

[Ele'ill]

If you're in prison, convert the guards and prisoners to your side and start the revolution from there. Better yet, convert the judge and lawyers during your trial, or the people who would arrest you before the order is even given. If you don't think you're persuasive enough, that's OK - you're new to this revolution thing and haven't been through a successful revolution yet ;)

what happened to you

[BIXX]

Wait, I'm talking about going nuts when you're the attacker, not going nuts when you're defending. Why is it "fucking stupid"? It's a far superior approach, and one that you actually see in the real world. Demonstrably, it is effective.
The question was "how do you defend yourself with a knife" and you responded with ways to attack people. A+



They aren't comparable. Hand to hand combat involves skill, whereas knife "fighting" doesn't. Your best option is to flee. If you can't for any reason, try and use any weapon to neutralise the threat (pepper spray etc.), and then flee. If you're going in with your bare hands, expect to get seriously injured or killed, unless you're incredibly, incredibly lucky.
Knife defense (and offense if you have anything other than an unarmed liberal that you're after) does take skill. Otherwise I agree- pepper spray and running away, when they are realistic options, are preferable.


That's how they make their money. They know that 100% safety guaranteed promises sell, because people want to feel safe, and know that they can handle any encounter. Unfortunately, that shit isn't realistic but nobody wants to hear that.
I know that a lot of mcdojos do that. But there are also a lot of really legit instructors out there who teach actively applicable ways to defend yourself.


These "self-defence" situations involve someone attacking in a choreographed and predictable way, then stopping (surprise surprise) in order to allow the teacher to counter attack.
That's the sort of shit you get told is reflective of realistic encounters.
You really don't know what my training looks like. I am aware of the mcdojos out there but thats the thing, steer clear of them and you'll find some legut places.

[Ele'ill]

kali is a combat 'sport' or program not a choreographed martial art and saying otherwise would be like saying mma, muay thai/bjj/csw is a choreographed martial art. A brief example would be when someone is attempting to stab you and both of you have knives out a lot of people are stabbing at your body/head the main big areas and you learn how to bleed them out by attacking their attack i.e. their hands, wrist, forearms, upper arm, armpit. It is obviously more in-depth than this however again as a brief example it shows that the training was developed for and more importantly through actual combat against other people. It is a learned training program in full.

[Zoop]

The question was "how do you defend yourself with a knife" and you responded with ways to attack people. A+
Uhm, yes, because attacking people with a knife can manifest itself as defence depending on the context and situation. A+ indeed.

Knife defense (and offense if you have anything other than an unarmed liberal that you're after) does take skill. Otherwise I agree- pepper spray and running away, when they are realistic options, are preferable.
You need the skill of going absolutely fucking batshit insane, yes, but that's about it.

You really don't know what my training looks like. I am aware of the mcdojos out there but thats the thing, steer clear of them and you'll find some legut places.
How do you know they're legit?

[Tim Cornelis]

Small arms will still be important in retaining territory. The bourgeois armies may have superior weapons, but as shown by various groups, including ISIS, FARC, Taliban, one can still conquer territory from superiorly armed armies. Additionally, there will be defections and sabotage. And yes, we should campaign for 'no penny, no person to the army' and disarmament of the government.

And oppose killer robots.


A lot of the anti-gun control arguments remind me of the conservative talking-point that says we need guns to fight federal tyranny. Now, I'm not necessarily against the idea of violent revolution, but I doubt that guns (no matter the caliber) alone are going to suffice against the US military, which deploys drones, heavy battle tanks, and mobile rocket-launcher platforms. Plus I think that a violent revolution will end badly in a "liberal democracy" like the US unless it has supporters from across the racial/geographical divide. The Black Panthers didn't last long (in part) because everybody thought they were a bunch of inner-city hoods and Communists; their guns didn't count for shit in the end.

But to the point, a significant number of gun owners are rural and suburban whites (not a traditional bastion of the revolutionary left). With the recent rise in right-wing militias, its more likely that these gun owners will fight against a left-wing insurgency, either by joining these extremist groups or forming more moderate ones. Either way, they'll be like the Freikorps; a large paramilitary force doing the bidding of the federal government that might swing toward fascism or some form of right-wing populism.

Violent revolution doesn't mean RAF-style individualistic insurrection. It means defending mass revolution from armed force.

[khad]

While there are some points in your post I agree with (no more knife fights), if you're saying that learning basic and adaptable techniques you're going to be a lot safer. Through in some decent trainign from a non-edged fighting system and you're well on your way to being alive. This isn't talking about duels but shit that the Navy SEALS train in, which most assuredly is not "go crazy with it".
And effective knife training even in a professional environment emphasizes striking first and maintaining aggression. Speed and techniques are honed with repetition, but I'm going to quote from the USMC combat manual about the overall aim:


-Execute movements with the knife blade
within a box, shoulder-width across from
the neck down to the waistline. The oppo-
nent has a greater chance of blocking an at-
tack if the blade is brought in a wide,
sweeping movement to the opponent.
l
-Close with the opponent, coming straight to
the target.
l
-Move with the knife in straight lines.
l
-Point the knife’s blade tip forward and to-
ward the opponent.
l
-Apply full body weight and power in each
of the knife techniques. Full body weight
should be put into the attack in the direction
of the blade’s movement (slash or thrust).
l
-Apply constant forward pressure with the
body and blade to keep the opponent off-balance

[Rafiq]

It would be pointless to actually engage effort in seeing to gun laws being enacted, but the position radicals ought to take is simple: Let the state do its dirty work against the petite-bourgeoisie. Let us openly acknowledge that we have much to gain from anti-gun laws - forget about all the utilitarian bullshit about its relation to homicides, only reactionaries, and armed petite-bourgeois thugs have something to lose from the gun laws. Perhaps forty years ago we should have rallied against the gun laws, but that epoch is over.


kali is a combat 'sport' or program not a choreographed martial art and saying otherwise would be like saying mma, muay thai/bjj/csw is a choreographed martial art.=

The problem, at least personally, from what I have seen with Kali is that while it definitely is supposed to have a practical purpose, often times those practicing it cannot actually practically apply what they learn beyond going crazy with their arms, losing all balance and coordination. This may very well be a problem that can be resolved, but the "heat" of a fight is very, very hard to replicate in a training session.

[Rafiq]

Small arms will still be important in retaining territory. The bourgeois armies may have superior weapons, but as shown by various groups, including ISIS, FARC, Taliban, one can still conquer territory from superiorly armed armies. Additionally, there will be defections and sabotage. And yes, we should campaign for 'no penny, no person to the army' and disarmament of the government.

A revolution would necessarily divide the 'bourgeois armies' at the very least, and if revolutionary war takes the form of guerrilla combat, it is already doomed. A revolution, which by definition would mean seizing state power and with it a huge arsenal of military, and technical expertise, is more likely to place a proletarian dictatorship in the position of an 'advanced army' vis a vis a reactionary insurgency. A revolution is not a "people's war". It is a revolution.

[khad]

Small arms will still be important in retaining territory. The bourgeois armies may have superior weapons, but as shown by various groups, including ISIS, FARC, Taliban, one can still conquer territory from superiorly armed armies. Additionally, there will be defections and sabotage. And yes, we should campaign for 'no penny, no person to the army' and disarmament of the government.
They have their use, but let's not forget what the biggest killer in the IS arsenal is. Given the low capabilities of most Middle Eastern air forces, this is superior to an air strike.

Rz9cMSK5h6I

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/21/isis-suicide-truck-bombs-took-out-entire-city-blocks-during-ramadi-raid/



In its initial raid on Ramadi, the Islamic State terror group (ISIS/ISIL) set off a string of 30 suicide car bombs that took out “entire city blocks,” a senior State Department official revealed.

In the first wave, the jihadis packed a bulldozer with explosives, which then successfully obliterated a security perimeter around an Iraqi government compound. Immediately after, about 30 vehicles flooded into the then-contested city, setting off another series of massive explosions, according to reports.
Ten of the thirty car bombs detonated resulted in such massive explosions that they packed enough comparable firepower to the 1995 Oklahoma City truck bomb, ABC News reports.

[Cliff Paul]

Clearly, if someone can quickly draw an unseen knife and stab you in vulnerable areas multiple times, defending it would require seeing that coming, which may be impossible, but http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/ describes scenarios in which the weapon is seen before the attack; the "prison yard rush," for example. Why is it impossible to do anything to defend that?

Well the website mentions this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873644840/nononsenseselfde as a guide to practical ways to defend yourself from such a scenario. In any case, he's still cautious to recommend it because your best option is to get out of there in the first place. And to be fair to Placenta Cream he obviously realizes this. The guy's website is mostly a knee-jerk response to people who think "oh gee if I learn this I can take on an armed opponent" and martial arts institutions that sell that kind of thinking. He doesn't suggest that there is absolutely no way to defend yourself against an armed attacker, but he's hesitant to suggest ways in which to do so because he wants people to primarily focus on getting themselves out of violent situations, since most of the time there is that option.

[Cliff Paul]

A revolution would necessarily divide the 'bourgeois armies' at the very least, and if revolutionary war takes the form of guerrilla combat, it is already doomed. A revolution, which by definition would mean seizing state power and with it a huge arsenal of military, and technical expertise, is more likely to place a proletarian dictatorship in the position of an 'advanced army' vis a vis a reactionary insurgency. A revolution is not a "people's war". It is a revolution.

What's your opinion on the various Maoist peoples wars (China, Nepal, Peru, etc.)?

[Sewer Socialist]

So, having had a little experience fighting unarmed people who are pretty much "going crazy", limbs everywhere, etc. a good defense is to wait them out - just defend yourself for about 30 seconds (which could be a lot of different things), don't worry about attack, and they'll be exhausted.

Does this not apply to people armed with knifes? Why not?


Well the website mentions this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873644840/nononsenseselfde as a guide to practical ways to defend yourself from such a scenario. In any case, he's still cautious to recommend it because your best option is to get out of there in the first place. And to be fair to Placenta Cream he obviously realizes this. The guy's website is mostly a knee-jerk response to people who think "oh gee if I learn this I can take on an armed opponent" and martial arts institutions that sell that kind of thinking. He doesn't suggest that there is absolutely no way to defend yourself against an armed attacker, but he's hesitant to suggest ways in which to do so because he wants people to primarily focus on getting themselves out of violent situations, since most of the time there is that option.

http://www.ucw.cz/~jerome/folsom.pdf <- the pdf is cheaper than $99 on amazon. I'll read it.

[Ele'ill]

The problem, at least personally, from what I have seen with Kali is that while it definitely is supposed to have a practical purpose, often times those practicing it cannot actually practically apply what they learn beyond going crazy with their arms, losing all balance and coordination. This may very well be a problem that can be resolved, but the "heat" of a fight is very, very hard to replicate in a training session.

Part of the reason combat sports (including kali) are combat sports is because, while there is obviously focus training and heavy repetition, you actively apply that through sparring at 40-60-80% intensity/contact or 'smokers' etc.. If you put someone who has never been in any type of violent situation into a violent situation adrenaline becomes overwhelming for most people. This can happen to experienced ring/cage fighters too but through repetition and active fights with another person you learn to trust the movements of your body in relation to the other person's. Sharpen the tools to fight through repetition, learn what a fight is through fighting.

[Zoop]

So, having had a little experience fighting unarmed people who are pretty much "going crazy", limbs everywhere, etc. a good defense is to wait them out - just defend yourself for about 30 seconds (which could be a lot of different things), don't worry about attack, and they'll be exhausted.

Does this not apply to people armed with knifes? Why not?

But what would waiting it out mean when it comes to being confronted by someone attacking you with a knife?

[khad]

What's your opinion on the various Maoist peoples wars (China, Nepal, Peru, etc.)?
The PLA was a full conventional army, having inherited nearly the entire armory of the Kwantung Army. What are you talking about?

They even recruited/press ganged Japanese prisoners into service to maintain and operate most of their heavy equipment. The majority of heavy artillery and AA in the immediate postwar period was operated by Japanese, in fact.

A similar situation occurred in Vietnam: http://www.warbirdforum.com/japviet.htm

[Sewer Socialist]

But what would waiting it out mean when it comes to being confronted by someone attacking you with a knife?

Staying away from the stabbing, slashing, and flailing limb with a knife; keeping mobile.

[Rafiq]

What's your opinion on the various Maoist peoples wars (China, Nepal, Peru, etc.)?

I could sympathize with them as romantic bourgeois insurrections, but they cannot be a model for a proletarian revolution.

[Invader Zim]

Two issues here:

1. Gun ownership tells only a small part of the story. The United States for example has a relatively high deathrate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate), ranking just under Mexico which has a virtual civil war going on between drug cartels. Then again Switzerland, where people keep their rifles from their militia duty (although they are converted to a semi-automat outside service), ranks significantly lower. This indicates that gun ownership in an of itself isn't the problem. The problem is social in nature.

2. Arguing for disarmament is effectively calling for strengthening the state, both because the population is disarmed and because the state is empowered to make sure it stays that way (using its monopoly on violence). For socialists this matters as it disarms the working class in its struggles, making the struggle for power a very bloody afair on our side of the class divide.

1. You are correct that the problem of voilent crime is social in nature, but if a country has those social problems then mass gun ownership clearly exacerbates them and the result is a vastly increased murder rate. Britain, which has many of the same social problems as the US, and indeed according to some metrics a higher violent crime rate, has a vastly lower murder rate.

2. As Khad has noted, the argument that privately owned firearms are serious tools for individual self-defence against the state is laughable. As I have argued elsewhere, for the revolution to proceed the arming of the working class is not really important, what is important is to split the armed and militarily trained organs of state on class lines. The revolution will not proceed with hand guns and plinking rifles in untrained hands.

[Sewer Socialist]

So, Illuminate's & Zoop's Folsom Prison knife technique book (http://www.ucw.cz/~jerome/folsom.pdf) recommends using the knife more like a cross (rear hand) than a jab; Khad's Marine Corps passage recommends using it more like a jab (lead hand).

The Folsom Prison book also has a good criticism of some martial arts, including Japanese Jiu-Jitsu, but it doesn't apply to all.


Examining all the ridiculous martial arts techniques would be both lengthy and boring. Ludicrous training methods include pressure points, joint-locks, come-alongs, high kicks, kata, and the like.

The martial arts are selling a style. Eastern religion, philosophy, language, tradition, and culture do not promote self-defense. In fact, most martial artists are neither trained nor proficient streetfighters because, simply put, they do not fight.

This is an especially good criticism of the sorts of martial arts which were popular in the '70s, especially their weird Oriental fetishes, and expecting a particular response. But the book is misleadingly presented on that "no nonsense self-defense website". While it does say this, disparaging technique:


All of these are tantamount to sticking your head in the sand and do not deal with reality. Real fighting can never be considered as "controlled technique" or "style".

...it then goes on to describe technique, which is in fact essentially boxing with the knife held with the rear hand, aka a "cross". With both fighters armed with knives, it stresses combinations, the familiar "1-2", as well as parrying a blow to expose the other person's side and attacking it. This is also basic boxing technique. Defending a knife while unarmed, it stresses keeping mobile, keeping a boxing stance, and staying patient for a good opportunity.

To summarize, it recommends modifying boxing technique by using the knife in your rear hand.

[cyu]

What's your opinion on the various Maoist peoples wars (China, Nepal, Peru, etc.)?


Exactly what I wanted to mention. Whatever you think about their political theory, they definitely have some successful military tactics. I'd say they made some missteps in Nepal with integration into the mainstream (maybe even analogous to Syriza mistakes after coming into power), but before that, seems they were doing well enough to put the fear of God into the ruling class - to some extent, that happened in India as well.

[Zoop]

^^ That's a great little pamphlet Sewer Socialist. It's actually grounded in real life experience, hence his critique of martial arts. I love the passages on mental attitude as well. Definitely one to keep going back to.

[Cliff Paul]

The PLA was a full conventional army, having inherited nearly the entire armory of the Kwantung Army. What are you talking about

The question was mostly about the situation in China before the conclusion of the Second Sino-Japanese War

[BIXX]

So, Illuminate's & Zoop's Folsom Prison knife technique book (http://www.ucw.cz/~jerome/folsom.pdf) recommends using the knife more like a cross (rear hand) than a jab; Khad's Marine Corps passage recommends using it more like a jab (lead hand).

The Folsom Prison book also has a good criticism of some martial arts, including Japanese Jiu-Jitsu, but it doesn't apply to all.



This is an especially good criticism of the sorts of martial arts which were popular in the '70s, especially their weird Oriental fetishes, and expecting a particular response. But the book is misleadingly presented on that "no nonsense self-defense website". While it does say this, disparaging technique:



...it then goes on to describe technique, which is in fact essentially boxing with the knife held with the rear hand, aka a "cross". With both fighters armed with knives, it stresses combinations, the familiar "1-2", as well as parrying a blow to expose the other person's side and attacking it. This is also basic boxing technique. Defending a knife while unarmed, it stresses keeping mobile, keeping a boxing stance, and staying patient for a good opportunity.

To summarize, it recommends modifying boxing technique by using the knife in your rear hand.

I'd have to read it to decide how full of shit it is or isn't. I think that a modified boxing technique can be OK (to some extent I do hold the knife in the rear hand, depending on what is going on, but idk. I'll pick up a copy and read it.

[MethodMania]

Because they are both attacks on autonomy.

So is anticapitalism.

Leftists don't care about abstract autonomy. We're for working class autonomy and against the autonomy of our enemies.

And there are enemies even if non class struggle "anarchists" refuse to identify them.

[cyu]

Is antislavery an attack on autonomy?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

On the slave-owner's autonomy, yeah.

[cyu]

Actually reminds me of management.

Bad people management skills is similar to slavery.

Good people management skills makes you a respected leader.

Great people management skills and they think you're just a friend or lover ;)

[Comrade Jacob]

We need guns to get rid of guns, "In order to get rid of the gun we must first take up the gun" -Mao.
The oppressors with guns aren't just going to put them down unless we force them to.

[John Nada]

A revolution would necessarily divide the 'bourgeois armies' at the very least, and if revolutionary war takes the form of guerrilla combat, it is already doomed. A revolution, which by definition would mean seizing state power and with it a huge arsenal of military, and technical expertise, is more likely to place a proletarian dictatorship in the position of an 'advanced army' vis a vis a reactionary insurgency. A revolution is not a "people's war". It is a revolution.A people's war is precisely for building up support to seize state power(strategic defensive), acquiring parity with the bourgeois states(strategic equilibrium), then fighting as an "advance army" against reactionaries who might as well be called insurgents(strategic offensive). It is not the focoist adventurism of various groups in the 60's-70's, who made no serious attempt at winning the support of the proletariat. It's a process that can build up to a revolution(or counterrevolution/reaction, if used by rightists). It can similarly be said that the October Revolution(initial a relatively peaceful insurrection, WWI notwithstanding) was a protracted one, with dual power set up in 1905, the February Revolution to remove the Tsar, then the October proletarian revolution.

It's one means to an end, not the end in itself. Same with an insurrection, various types of guerrilla warfare, various types of mass protests, riots, partisan warfare, dual power, general strikes, legalist methods such as elections, armored warfare, naval warfare, or a total war between states(ie DotP vs. counterrevolutionary invasion). A tool in the box. None of which are inherently revolutionary, but not inherently counterrevolutionary either. Like that saying "War is a continuation of politics by another means".

[BIXX]

So is anticapitalism.

Leftists don't care about abstract autonomy. We're for working class autonomy and against the autonomy of our enemies.

And there are enemies even if non class struggle "anarchists" refuse to identify them.

What makes you think I refuse to identify ruch people, bosses, liberals, cops, citizens, etc... As my enemy?

And no, autonomy is not abstract. It's a very specific condition of existence. It isn't an affront to the autonomy of the bourgeoisie if you destroy their ability to control yoy- thats the reality of one person's autonomy asserting itself in response to control over them.

[MethodMania]

The existence of the bourgeoisie is contingent on its autonomy to control you. Hence anticapitalism.

[willowtooth]

There are a lot of "self-defence" systems out there which teach you how to use a knife and how to defend against one. The truth is, reality isn't choreographed, and it is almost impossible to defend yourself against a knife. It's even more difficult to get away without serious injuries. There are no skilled knife fighters; the idea of the skilled knife fighter is based on a misunderstanding of how actual knife "fights" go down.

The only competent way to use a knife is to go nuts with it, and that's what someone wielding a knife is going to do anyway. There are absolutely no skills to learn when it comes to knife "fighting". Just stab and slash.

Look on the "lies about knife fighting" page on nononsenseselfdefense.com if you're interested in learning more about it.

speaking as someone who has been in several knife fights, i cant tell you, for a fact, that there is a away too defend yourself against a knife attack, and that skill matters alot :mad:

[Black Panther]

Geez, what you discuss here, just a bunch of theoretics based on personal vision of different political theories.

Answering the OP. Gun fetishism as well as all the gun culture in the US have more importance than self-defense. Guns won't ever be banned because propaganda and "national ideology" work brilliant on people.

[Ele'ill]

Geez, what you discuss here, just a bunch of theoretics based on personal vision of different political theories.

opposed to the revolutionaries who have come back through time in a time-machine to share their historical facts

[cyu]

There are people who want the working class to have power, and there are those who are useful for leading them into slavery.

http://quotespictures.net/quotes-pictures-pics/2014/05/under-no-pretext-should-arms-and-ammunition-be-surrendered-karl-marx.jpg

http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Symbol-Of-Democracy.jpg

http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors47/tmb/huey-newton-activist-any-unarmed-people-are-slaves-or-are-subject-to.jpg

[Cliff Paul]

http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Symbol-Of-Democracy.jpg


K. You try and fight a first world military with a lever action rifle

[cyu]

The point of anarchists is to give everyone as much power as possible. If it makes the working class more powerful, then it is good. This includes any weapons. This also includes psychological tactics as well. If it weakens the working class, while leaving the ruling class and their minions in a more powerful position, then I would say they are either agents or dupes of the ruling class.

[Hexen]

A lot of the anti-gun control arguments remind me of the conservative talking-point that says we need guns to fight federal tyranny. Now, I'm not necessarily against the idea of violent revolution, but I doubt that guns (no matter the caliber) alone are going to suffice against the US military, which deploys drones, heavy battle tanks, and mobile rocket-launcher platforms. Plus I think that a violent revolution will end badly in a "liberal democracy" like the US unless it has supporters from across the racial/geographical divide. The Black Panthers didn't last long (in part) because everybody thought they were a bunch of inner-city hoods and Communists; their guns didn't count for shit in the end.

But to the point, a significant number of gun owners are rural and suburban whites (not a traditional bastion of the revolutionary left). With the recent rise in right-wing militias, its more likely that these gun owners will fight against a left-wing insurgency, either by joining these extremist groups or forming more moderate ones. Either way, they'll be like the Freikorps; a large paramilitary force doing the bidding of the federal government that might swing toward fascism or some form of right-wing populism.

Well then again, when conservatives/conspiracy nuts/etc (who are the rural and suburban whites) talk about "federal tyranny" they're exactly (and subconsciously) talking about the left you know....