Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Guns and anarchist society

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by ungovernable, May 16, 2010.

  1. HCdancingsux

    HCdancingsuxActive Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    0

    May 18, 2010
     
    I'll borrow an Eddie Izzard quote to illustrate how I generally feel about this topic:

    "The National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, uh, people do." But I think, I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that."

    So yeah I am against guns and personally wouldn't own one, but I guess not all guns are for killing are they? Its really the bullets I have a problem with. They're unnecessary for all purposes except to kill. If you like target practice, get an airsoft or paintball gun. If you want to defend yourself, you could use sedatives, or rubber bullets.

    Or you could just shout 'bang!' and see what happens. :D
     
  2. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,326

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    And again, the biggest contradiction in gun defenders speech is that on one side they claim that guns aren't responsible of most of the murders and on the other side they claim they need guns because they need to protect themselves against firearms assault...

    Your example with washington DC means nothing. It won't change anything to ban the guns in washington DC when there are still more guns than cars in the whole country. Secondly, capitalism and povrety is responsible of most of the problems around guns, assaults and murders. You can't compare a gun-free anarchist community with a capitalist state which banned guns in a country where there are more guns than cars and where all those guns are still in circulation everywhere else in the country.

    So basically, you are saying that if guns were legal in washington DC the murders stats wouldn't raise ?

    In an anarchist society you would tolerate extremist militia and bullshit like that ? Wow !


    Yes, but it easier to kill someone by pulling a trigger than having the courage to use your fists or a knife. Also, it is harder to kill multiple peoples without guns.

    Let's say a child want to kill a lot of peoples at school like it happenned a lot of time (especially in the USA oh well we wonder why ??). With a knife, he will be easily stopped. With a gun, no one can stop him. Same thing for militias who want to take back the power... I doubt an army of fascists without firearms will be able to take over the power.

    Seriously what you say is really stupid, more guns and less regulations ??? Please explain how you see your anarchist society... Kids will be able to buy guns since there will be no regulations ?? Peoples will be able to bring guns at school to protect themselves and since anyway, like you said, a gun-free zone doesn't means less aggression ?? The ennemies of anarchists will be able to start their own militias with war weapons ??
     
  3. HCdancingsux

    HCdancingsuxActive Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    0

    May 18, 2010
     
    Anarchists shouldn't have enemies if we do everything we can to avoid them! The event that someone will try to attack a peaceful anarchist community is slim, but if it should happen the main tactic should be any type of self-defense that will not kill the attacker no matter who they are. If we try our hardest not to give them a fight, then they will not be interested. Violence and intimidation are a very last resort, in most situations there is another way. Using psychology and communication is critical.
     
  4. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    I am not saying hand out guns to everyone but banning them will not stop people from killing. The fact is in American the majority of murders are committed with knives and fists. So then will you ban knives because those can kill? Cars kill shall we ban those as well?

    And without the means to defend yourself you will be crushed. If they are determined to take your freedom away you must be equally determined to defend. Maybe even more determined. I do not promote violence but I will defend myself and those around me with what ever means necessary, up to and including taking a life if that's what it takes.
     
  5. bgrass

    bgrassExperienced Member Experienced member


    50

    0

    0

    Apr 11, 2010
     
    You vote, you support, you may even take part in the actions that are used to prohibit the gun ownership. So you are responsible for the actions that are taken to do what you have voted for and what you support. This is why I ask what you are willing to do to the person who chooses not to obey. If you are going to get his guns, will you ask, or will you take. If he disobeys what will you do. If you ask him to leave and he says, fuck you this is my home, what will you do? Will you turn to violence?

    And you keep telling me I'm paranoid, how am I? In the paradigm we live in today, when someone wants to prohibit something, its through the state, which is through violence. So when someone wants gun control, its through violence. When someone wants drug prohibition, its through violence. When someone wants to regulate action, its through violence. So I'm not being paranoid and my question is valid. What are you going to do when someone disobeys your attempt to control them?
     
  6. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Hell yes. For environmental reasons. Just like airplanes. Get a bike; not highly lethal, not ruining the planet and gives you some excercise.
     
  7. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Do you realize you would be condemning millions, no, billions, of people to death by outlawing motor vehicles? Crops go from field to market by truck. These will most likely always be diesel. Electric power just will not work for this. I whole heartedly agree with you though that people should ride a bike or walk more but outlawing things only strips away freedom. It will not make you safer, just less free.

    Nothing, they will be the ones with guns.
     
  8. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Diesel is made from oil and it takes millions of years to make oil so no , there won't always be diesel.
    I didn't say that all motor wehicles should be gone right away and i know where crops come from, to begin with we would still need to use some motor wheicles but eventually we wouldn't. Cars would not be needed even today if it didn't cost a fortune to take the train (also a motor wehicle but not as bad as cars). No one needs to take a plane but today it's so much cheaper then train or usually even bus and people are so stressed and egoistic they don't even concider other ways of travelling.
    The way it is today i am sometimes forced to use a car. I don't own one and don't want to but for example when moving i am forced to move everything and there are no options today, so i have to get a ride for me and my stuff but i don't use cars when i don't have to.
    Also i don't think 'outlawing' is what it is to descide that we don't want cars or guns or what ever it may be.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,326

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    wow sorry but this is very naive, fascism will never disseapear, and there will ALWAYS be peoples trying to take over the power, even if we are peaceful. Thinking everything will disseapear just because we are a peaceful anarchist society if very naive..

    You understand nothing, i think you do this on purpose. I already explained many times the difference between firearms and other weapons, now i am not going to repeat myself again. Wasted enough time with you.

    Repeat mode ON:
    Yes, but it easier to kill someone by pulling a trigger than having the courage to use your fists or a knife. Also, it is harder to kill multiple peoples without guns.

    Let's say a child want to kill a lot of peoples at school like it happenned a lot of time (especially in the USA oh well we wonder why ??). With a knife, he will be easily stopped. With a gun, no one can stop him. Same thing for militias who want to take back the power... I doubt an army of fascists without firearms will be able to take over the power.

    Seriously what you say is really stupid, more guns and less regulations ??? Please explain how you see your anarchist society... Kids will be able to buy guns since there will be no regulations ?? Peoples will be able to bring guns at school to protect themselves and since anyway, like you said, a gun-free zone doesn't means less aggression ?? The ennemies of anarchists will be able to start their own militias with war weapons ??


    I never said anarchists shouldn't be ready to defend themselves. But this defense should be organized in order and not in disorder by giving a weapon to everyone. I also explained this many times using the examples of syndicates, zapatistas, spanish revolution, makhnovtchina, etc...


    Wow, you can't read or what ??? I just explained this and answered all of your questions.

    Repeat mode ON:
    Inform yourself about anarchist social contract and how it work.
    When establishing a community, we will decide how this community will work. If we decide that guns are not allowed, then everyone who join the community will have to accept the social contract. So no guns at all should enter the community, end of the story. If someone is found with guns, then he is breaking the social contract. So either we get his guns, or he leave the community and move to another community where guns are tolerated.


    If you sign the contract it's because you agree, end of the story. So there shouldn't be any problems, peoples will live with other persons sharing the same point of views.

    Yes you are being paranoid, because it's obvious that's not the way anarchists would act. Read your history.
     
  10. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    So only certain people will have the means to defend themselves. How will this be decided? How do you propose that the decision to bar some people to defend themselves be made? Who will defend them when the people "appointed" to defend them become the aggressor? When it gets to that point then what do you do? Another armed revolution? That would be a good idea if arms were available, but in this utopia there would be no guns. Except for a select few who now have all the power. Good luck with that.
     
  11. anthonyjosafiend

    anthonyjosafiendMember Forum Member


    24

    0

    0

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    I think we need guns to protect ourselves from tyrants and zombies. In the occaision someone breaks into my home I probably wouldn't kill them, unless if my life was truly threatend. I would probably just fire a warning shot, kick their ass, or hit them with rock salt shot (non-lethal, but it hurts like a motherfucker.) I wouldn't kill them mostly because I belive burglary is a bi-product of survival in this capitalist system. Hell If I had something to give them or help them at the time I probably would, if they return what they took.

    As far as guns go in an Anarchistic society, I think they would still be nessary, in order for defense against other imprealistic regimes. Who's to say that there still won't be other nations who want what we have, or don't like how we organize? Think Spanish civil war, Tryants, Facists, imperealists, zombies etc. are everywhere. And until they are gone, I belive some line of defense is nessary, however, it should never be abbused.
     
  12. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Oh you're right, i didn't think about the zombies... lol
     
  13. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    You can never forget about zombies....that's how they get you.
     
  14. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Yeah i'm just lucky now that i got reminded of them, the zombie threat is after all what we need to focus on.
     
  15. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    I keep a bug out bag in my closet next to my 12 gauge. I am always ready for those undead bastards!!
     
  16. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,326

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    Seriously, do i really have to explain everything ? At least do you know what the fuck a syndicate is ? ANYONE would have access to it, NOBODY would decide who have access to it. That's why i call it horizontal hierarchy. Please learn what is a syndicate. And please study the spanish revolution.

    No not only certain peoples will be allowed to defend themselves. And those peoples will not defend themselves but will defend the entire community.

    Like i said in anarchist projects like that the peoples defending others are retrogradable at any time and there is a rotation of the tasks so there is no abuse and no power game. How the fuck can you become an agressor when you don't even stay long enough in power to do so? And anyway there would be peoples watching them etc... Seriously, study the anarchist theories a little, there are many many theories around what i am explaining, i'm not going to explain you everything.

    I still defy you to find one single example where this concept was abused and where anarchists became power hungry, agressors and oppressors. You can find many examples of armed syndicates assuring the security, but absolutly zero examples of what you are pretending.

    Like i said, yes we will need guns to defend ourselves that's common sense. But if you want to have a SERIOUS "army" to defend the people then you need some kind of organization, some kind of order. Once we got this self-defense organization established, there is no need for others to own weapons to defend themselves.

    The zapatists are a good example. They use weapons to protect themselves but theorically they are non-violent and they are against weapons. The weapons in the EZLN are given to the member of the zapatist army (EZLN) not to any citizen of the community. That's EXACTLY the concept i am trying to explain. And since you have sub-commandante marcos as an avatar, i suppose you agree with that.

    In a century of existence, the zapatists always had weapons to protect themselves and there was never any kind of abuse like ghoul is pretending, there was never any zapatists who tryed to take the power or zapatists who become aggressors like ghoul suggests. It would be the same thing in an anarchist revolution, and hisory proven it.
     
  17. Wooly

    WoolyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    123

    0

    0

    May 24, 2010
     
    Ive never gone hunting, dont like the idea of killing things. Your right about fucking with eco-systems, But its not like im saying "honest" hunting should be the ONLY way to obtain meat. In any Society it is necessary to farm, and if hunting is going to be the only way of obtaining meat you definitely have to think about over hunting, and maybe hunt in different areas to allow populations of animals to restore. And i like the idea of using Bows instead of guns.

    I still dont like this "Syndicate" thing, i think it would be too easy for the people in the syndicate to just say "Fuck it, if you want our protection your going to have to pay for it" or basically install themselves as a government. I was thinking about this before and it reminds me of the movie "The book of Eli", where the whole world is basically a post-apocalyptic Anarchy, with self-operating towns. The towns are run by groups of bandits, and there are constant power plays, Mutinies and takeovers of the towns. What is there to stop a syndicate from taking over (Especially if that syndicate was originally charged with gun control, and presumably had control over most of the guns in the community)?

    Another point is, Many community would not be able to acquire bullets, and would eventually run out (Especially if they were having to use them to repel groups of fascists/bandits trying to install governments). In the movie Book of Eli, Those who have stocks of bullets have the power. I suspect this would eventually happen too in a Post revolutionary Society.
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,326

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    lol if they want to get paid they are not forced to keep doing the job since this is a volunteer task

    The book of eli have absolutly nothing to do with anarchism, this is not anarchism, this is chaos and disorder.

    Do you seriously think a syndicate of thousands of peoples would say one day "hey we are thousands of peoples who decided to stop being anarchist today, let's take the power!!" what you are saying will never happen. Even if the members of the syndicate wanted to take the power it would only be a small part of it and it would be easily stopped by the rest of the members. If ALL members want to take the power and give up their anarchist ideas (which is more unlikely than an invasion of aliens) then fuck that, this is definatly not anarchist, and if the principal organ of a revolution (the syndicates) want to take the power and stop being anarchist then screw it, the revolution is fucked and there's nothing you can do anyway since it is definatly not anarchism and all anarchists betrayed their ideas. But like i said it will not happen, and it never happenned in history.

    I'd be curious to know if even one of you who argue against me studied the anarchist revolution in spain ? or the makhnovtchina ? or the zapatists ? No you didn't. Because if you understood how these revolutions worked you wouldn't ask me those questions.
    Seriously, before claiming yourself as an anarchist and before critizing anarchist theories saying it will not work, start by learning what happenned in the past and how it was done.

    Oh and once again, like the others, you failed to provide an alternative. Please explain me a better way to maintain order while protecting the peoples without organizations and syndicates like the ones i am describing ?

    Maybe you should stop watching hollywood movie and focus on the real life instead of your Society of the Spectacle (c.f. Guy Debord)

    In USA, there are more guns than cars. Guess how many bullets there is ?

    Even a third world war couldn't make the USA run out of bullets, or make it rare and hard to find.
     
  19. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    I have never argued that there shouldn't be something to help provide order. I just maintain that the people should be able to protect themselves from that group if necessary. Taking away the ability for the people to defend against that group invites oppression.

    It never happens like that. It is usually a slow progression resulting from the manipulation of fear. The German people didn't wake up one day with intentions of genocide. I don't think the Russians intended to create a system that resulted in the deaths of 20 million people. I know you don't intend for a similar out come but it is possible. People make mistakes, it's what we do. There will never be a perfect system because there will never be perfect people. The best we can hope for is to do the best we can and be ready to do what is necessary to stop and/or fix a bad situation. Unfortunately this sometimes includes violence.
     
  20. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,326

    60

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 33 years old
    Canada Canada
    It's not "taking away" if peoples agree to not own weapons in certain community.

    And it's not "that group" since in an anarchist society the power wouldn't be centralized. So it would be multiple groups of syndicates and multiple organizations who would own the weapons for protection of the people. In case of an external agression, there would be a federation of those groups to act together. That's what anarcho-federalism is all about.

    Just counting on the people and their guns to defend ourself is definatly not a good idea. They need organization and order, do you really think that in case of an aggression people would magically stand up and group together to form an army when they have never been trained and never been in an organization ?

    Hitler's intentions were very clear since the beginning.

    Bolcheviks intentions were also very clear. Maybe they didn't say that they wanted to kill millions of people but they clearly said they wanted to centralize the power so the outcome was easy to expect.

    This is definatly not the same as anarchism.

    You can not find a single example of an anarchist army or an anarchist society with HORIZONTAL hierarchy that ended up in genocide, dictatorship, or authoritarism.... Why would it happen if we do the same thing they did ?

    That's why if the decisions aren't in the hands of a small group of individuals, all problems are solved. You can't trust a dictator or a small group of dictators to take the decision at the place of the people. That's why i am talking about an horizontal hierarchy and not vertical.
     
Loading...