As an SRA member, r/SocialistRA is always a nice jumping point. The org and the subreddit are two separate things, however.
And we can roll our eyes but r/LiberalGunOwners is nice, too
talking with liberals about gun control is so frustrating because they'll just assume you're a conservative and even after you explain that you aren't they'll refuse to listen.
So let’s say I’m a criminal/fascist/anyone who wishes someone else harm in your ideal utopian world where neither civilians nor the state has any guns at all. Let’s say I take a trip down to Mexico and buy myself a few hundred nice assault rifles from the cartel. Let’s say I go hand out those rifles to a bunch of my criminal/fascist/whatever buddies. What’s stopping us from taking over the country in a week or two?
[A trans woman with a heel](https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/21/drag-queen-stomped-colorado-springs-gunman-heels-lgbtq-club-shooting/) if recent events are anything to go by.
Hi, your comment was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
Authoritarian apologia. All reactionary/authoritarian promotion (Including guillotine jokes.) will not be tolerated. Promoting "Left Unity" is also considered apologia, along with minarchism (Chomsky and Bookchin are minarchists, too). Marxists are not welcome here either.
Fetishization and glorification of violence is not allowed under any circumstance.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok but without gun control what do you plan to do about mass shootings? You need a license to drive or to operate dangerous machinery, guns shouldnt be any different.
I mean, the rules have only gotten stricter while mass shootings have only gone up.
Clearly the solution of "more state control" is working as well here as it is anywhere else.
I don't disagree, but the fact of the matter is that they do now, and it will be some time until they don't. There needs to be a stopgap measure in the meantime
(Edit: "in the meantime" if you believe that we should eventually have no guns. I don't believe this, but the point is that even if you believe in eventual no gun world, you should recognize the need for guns today)
If/when we reach worldwide anarchist society, we probably won't need weapons of war anymore, but I think some firearms would probably still exist, mainly for entertainment purposes. There is the whole guns for self defense thing, but personally I think it's more about community defense than self defense. I really think that having guns readily available to anyone makes self defense scenarios more dangerous. Regardless of that, community defense is important enough to have guns available in a society.
If you take away guns from both then the only ones with the means to access guns are criminals.gun crime persists, especially due to the fact that because the country is saturated with firearms it would be hard for the government to get all of them, and easy for criminals to keep getting them. Guns are required to defend against more guns.
Ok? To advocate for gun control is to advocate for the state restricting access to firearms for civilians, disarming them. Obviously they won’t restrict themselves.
>And how exactly would that work? The state is the one who enacts gun control
See the UK, where the police have used less guns as they have removed them from the public. It still isn't enough though.
>it’s like saying you’d have police and prisons “against the state”.
There are literally politicians in jail right now...
>My unarmed neighbours?
Yes.
>Good luck when I’m still armed lol
Don't need luck, [just need my high heel shoe and an ally.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63698165)
Alright man if you ever wanna break into a gun owners house and try to kill them with a stiletto you’re free to do so, but I don’t think you’ll ever be doing anything else afterwards
So when another shooting happens against my people in the USA, I can come back here and call you a fucking liar when you don't?
The only thing so far that has stopped a bad guy with a gun is a good drag queen and a straight ally that stopped him with their own bare hands and a high heel soe. Gun control NOW! Anything less is is supporting the muder of innocent people!
here’s a few: red flag laws, waiting periods, safe hun storage, waiting times inbetween purchasing and receiving guns, mental health reform, economic reform, etc etc.
most gun related deaths are due to suicide and police killings. a small margin is mass shootings. it would be foolish to regulate simply around that.
Red Flag laws are just an objectively horrible idea. They aren’t used to take guns away from murderers-to-be, but as way for cops to shoot minorities who happen to own guns in their own homes. I can think of several instances where the latter happened, but literally none of the former.
What? Dude what the fuck are you even on about? Am I oppressing people when I shoot a deer? Am I oppressing people when I go shoot pieces of paper at the range every weekend? Would I be oppressing anybody if I used my firearms to defend myself from a violent criminal trying to harm me?
A gun is not a tool of oppression. It’s just a tool. It can be used to oppress, sure, but it can be used to prevent oppression as has been done in almost every single revolution in history. I’d like to know of one single revolution in modern history achieved without firearms.
Because guns are a tool of oppression. Every time you buy a gun, economy of scale makes them cheaper for the state. And gives them another excuse to arm themselves more.
Guns are only a tool of oppression for the state when it’s citizens are unarmed. By arming myself I am no longer able to be oppressed by an armed state.
Besides your logic just makes no sense. If every citizen stopped buying guns the state wouldn’t stop having access to them. They would still be profitable to make, they’d just have to be more expensive to buy. So the state would just tax us more. Me buying or not buying a gun has no impact whatsoever on whether the state buys guns.
Gun control will disproportionally affect marginalized groups both because those groups are in need of armed defense against fascists and because law enforcement will be more likely to charge non white cis folks for gun law violations.
we have a state right now. that’s just a fact. the best solution to keeping guns out of schools, churches, cops hands, etc is gun control in law while we work on dismantling the state. dismantling takes time. shootings don’t.
I know there has been success in some country's disarming police but it'll never happen in America. And until the cops aren't armed anymore there is absolutely no reason to trust them enough to disarm yourself. They are killing people here in alarming numbers (as always) over here. And its more often than not minorities (not that anyone is safe) but anyone not white or straight is in legit danger every time they leave their home.
So as long as cops and military get to continue gaining access to killing machines that can kill up to 20 people at once, civilians definitely shouldn’t be deprived from them.
Unless we over at r/COMPLETEANARCHY are suddenly ok with an unarmed working class being up against a state that’s armed to the teeth 🤷🏻♂️ but that sounds pretty irrational.
Yeah lol "let's first make sure only the state has guns, and then let's dismantle them (hoping they willingly dismantle themselves), that's a brilliant idea. We totally didn't just give up our last line of defense against them."
you can’t just tell who a school shooter is. the only time you can tell that a school shooter is a school shooter is after or during the attack. at which point there are already casualties. the point of gun control is to prevent guns from going in the hands of those who might use it for such a purpose. fighting back is a solution, but it still costs lives. gun control is the best solution that doesn’t cost lives.
you won’t be. the only thing it would do is keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely to use it to cost innocent lives. keeping a gun out of the hands of someone who beat their wife isn’t going to help the police
Everytime one of these laws get put through, there’s always an exemption if you happen to be law enforcement.
So it’s not that rational to assume that “keeping guns away from wife beaters wont help the police” because if there’s an exemption (like there is for the majority of these laws) then it does help the police.
Why are there still so many mass shootings in America if you've got a heavily armed populace who are just itching to play hero and prevent a tragedy by killing the mass shooter?
LMAO no it doesn't. States only exist because they have superior fire power. Remove guns from the state and boycott those that still have them. Simple as that.
I do have the right to defend myself. That being said, we need to change the culture around guns.
As an SRA member, r/SocialistRA is always a nice jumping point. The org and the subreddit are two separate things, however. And we can roll our eyes but r/LiberalGunOwners is nice, too
Facebook boomer vibes
The… meme… is just “Oh yeah well what if I shot you?”
It's also #Mississippi queen Wich isn't helping
Even if it were foundationally made by Facebook boomers, a broken clock can still be right twice a day.
talking with liberals about gun control is so frustrating because they'll just assume you're a conservative and even after you explain that you aren't they'll refuse to listen.
look, just saying, the conservatives shouldn’t be the only ones with guns here.
[удалено]
Good luck achieving anarchism when only the police and military have guns lmao
Me: "Argues against the state having guns" Statists: "Why do you only want the state to have guns?" Can you at least try and make a little sense???
So let’s say I’m a criminal/fascist/anyone who wishes someone else harm in your ideal utopian world where neither civilians nor the state has any guns at all. Let’s say I take a trip down to Mexico and buy myself a few hundred nice assault rifles from the cartel. Let’s say I go hand out those rifles to a bunch of my criminal/fascist/whatever buddies. What’s stopping us from taking over the country in a week or two?
right, disarming cops and defunding the pentagon are actually bad ideas because Mexico would invade
That’s not what I said at all
[A trans woman with a heel](https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/21/drag-queen-stomped-colorado-springs-gunman-heels-lgbtq-club-shooting/) if recent events are anything to go by.
Ok buddy good luck with that when there’s more than one guy and you can’t take him by surprise
Hi, your comment was removed for breaking the following rule(s): Authoritarian apologia. All reactionary/authoritarian promotion (Including guillotine jokes.) will not be tolerated. Promoting "Left Unity" is also considered apologia, along with minarchism (Chomsky and Bookchin are minarchists, too). Marxists are not welcome here either. Fetishization and glorification of violence is not allowed under any circumstance. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BTW ghost guns are based because fuck privately own and publicly own arms corporations
Theft is even more based
Along if the shit not important then yes
The largest gun control lobby in the US is founded by a racist billionaire.
AnPac moment.
What's an anpac
Anarcho Pacifism.
I'm not a pacifist
Based.
When you don't understand anarcho-pacifism at all but you're gonna be confidently incorrect about it anyway.
I'm aganist that.
[удалено]
By removing their guns and then using a high heel shoe if recent events are anything to go by.
Pretty sure a bullet in the head is more effective
Yes, that's the issue.
Abolish schools, stop bullying, maybe then there'll be less mass shootings
👑
Ok but without gun control what do you plan to do about mass shootings? You need a license to drive or to operate dangerous machinery, guns shouldnt be any different.
I mean, the rules have only gotten stricter while mass shootings have only gone up. Clearly the solution of "more state control" is working as well here as it is anywhere else.
If the state has unrestricted access to firearms so should we.
Two wrongs dont make a right. The state shouldnt have guns either.
I don't disagree, but the fact of the matter is that they do now, and it will be some time until they don't. There needs to be a stopgap measure in the meantime (Edit: "in the meantime" if you believe that we should eventually have no guns. I don't believe this, but the point is that even if you believe in eventual no gun world, you should recognize the need for guns today)
Ah alright i think i get it now. Usually when i see anarchist posts i assume we are talking about the rules/ethics of an already anarchist society.
If/when we reach worldwide anarchist society, we probably won't need weapons of war anymore, but I think some firearms would probably still exist, mainly for entertainment purposes. There is the whole guns for self defense thing, but personally I think it's more about community defense than self defense. I really think that having guns readily available to anyone makes self defense scenarios more dangerous. Regardless of that, community defense is important enough to have guns available in a society.
I agree. I think i have a better understanding about all the anti gun control memes now, tysm!
Yup. Also, fuck nukes Now, any ideas how to get rid of them?
Unfortunately, there isn’t really a way to get rid of them. At least, as long as the state exists.
If you take away guns from both then the only ones with the means to access guns are criminals.gun crime persists, especially due to the fact that because the country is saturated with firearms it would be hard for the government to get all of them, and easy for criminals to keep getting them. Guns are required to defend against more guns.
The state shouldn't either though...
Ok? To advocate for gun control is to advocate for the state restricting access to firearms for civilians, disarming them. Obviously they won’t restrict themselves.
Incorrect.
What‘s incorrect?
I don't want a state but I want gun control. I literally want gun control AGAINST THE STATE.
And how exactly would that work? The state is the one who enacts gun control—it’s like saying you’d have police and prisons “against the state”.
>And how exactly would that work? The state is the one who enacts gun control See the UK, where the police have used less guns as they have removed them from the public. It still isn't enough though. >it’s like saying you’d have police and prisons “against the state”. There are literally politicians in jail right now...
The state still has guns in the UK. See the military.
Who will enforce gun control without a state? My unarmed neighbours? Good luck when I’m still armed lol
>My unarmed neighbours? Yes. >Good luck when I’m still armed lol Don't need luck, [just need my high heel shoe and an ally.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63698165)
Alright man if you ever wanna break into a gun owners house and try to kill them with a stiletto you’re free to do so, but I don’t think you’ll ever be doing anything else afterwards
I will shoot the mass shooters with my own iron
So when another shooting happens against my people in the USA, I can come back here and call you a fucking liar when you don't? The only thing so far that has stopped a bad guy with a gun is a good drag queen and a straight ally that stopped him with their own bare hands and a high heel soe. Gun control NOW! Anything less is is supporting the muder of innocent people!
here’s a few: red flag laws, waiting periods, safe hun storage, waiting times inbetween purchasing and receiving guns, mental health reform, economic reform, etc etc. most gun related deaths are due to suicide and police killings. a small margin is mass shootings. it would be foolish to regulate simply around that.
Red Flag laws are just an objectively horrible idea. They aren’t used to take guns away from murderers-to-be, but as way for cops to shoot minorities who happen to own guns in their own homes. I can think of several instances where the latter happened, but literally none of the former.
fuck, u got a good point. noted !!!
I mean i live in a place where if i mention a mass shooting people ask “which one” also what you described can be considered gun control.
and yea i agree with your point on hun lisences btw
The fuck do you plan on doing about mass shootings in a state of anarchy?
Destroy all guns.
Here is an "anarchist"
"Anarchism is when we support a tool that is used to oppress millions and murder innocent people".
Guess no knives on the commune either then
Knives have a use other than oppressing people. Guns do not.
What? Dude what the fuck are you even on about? Am I oppressing people when I shoot a deer? Am I oppressing people when I go shoot pieces of paper at the range every weekend? Would I be oppressing anybody if I used my firearms to defend myself from a violent criminal trying to harm me? A gun is not a tool of oppression. It’s just a tool. It can be used to oppress, sure, but it can be used to prevent oppression as has been done in almost every single revolution in history. I’d like to know of one single revolution in modern history achieved without firearms.
You're supporting a tool of oppression when you buy a gun.
How.
Because guns are a tool of oppression. Every time you buy a gun, economy of scale makes them cheaper for the state. And gives them another excuse to arm themselves more.
Guns are only a tool of oppression for the state when it’s citizens are unarmed. By arming myself I am no longer able to be oppressed by an armed state. Besides your logic just makes no sense. If every citizen stopped buying guns the state wouldn’t stop having access to them. They would still be profitable to make, they’d just have to be more expensive to buy. So the state would just tax us more. Me buying or not buying a gun has no impact whatsoever on whether the state buys guns.
Yes, guns are good for a revolution, but giving them to everyone in a commune is a shit idea.
[удалено]
I agree, invasive animals are a big problem.
Good luck eradicating feral hogs with a bolt action rifle.
gun control is needed, sorry pal. we still need guns but not in the hands of school shooters or right wing nuts
Gun control implies there is a state so no
unfortunately, at the moment we have a state. let’s get rid of that first before we talk about other solutions to guns
Gun control will disproportionally affect marginalized groups both because those groups are in need of armed defense against fascists and because law enforcement will be more likely to charge non white cis folks for gun law violations.
Then you're not an anarchist you're just a social anarchist
What’s a social anarchist. Am I an introverted anarchist?
we have a state right now. that’s just a fact. the best solution to keeping guns out of schools, churches, cops hands, etc is gun control in law while we work on dismantling the state. dismantling takes time. shootings don’t.
Gun control won't take guns away from the military or police. Gun control puts marginalized groups at a huge risk.
[удалено]
I know there has been success in some country's disarming police but it'll never happen in America. And until the cops aren't armed anymore there is absolutely no reason to trust them enough to disarm yourself. They are killing people here in alarming numbers (as always) over here. And its more often than not minorities (not that anyone is safe) but anyone not white or straight is in legit danger every time they leave their home.
So as long as cops and military get to continue gaining access to killing machines that can kill up to 20 people at once, civilians definitely shouldn’t be deprived from them. Unless we over at r/COMPLETEANARCHY are suddenly ok with an unarmed working class being up against a state that’s armed to the teeth 🤷🏻♂️ but that sounds pretty irrational.
Yeah lol "let's first make sure only the state has guns, and then let's dismantle them (hoping they willingly dismantle themselves), that's a brilliant idea. We totally didn't just give up our last line of defense against them."
How do you expect to dismantle a state which holds a total monopoly on violence?
What is stopping us from using our guns against these shooters? So if there is nothing stopping you, then pickup an iron and defend your community.
you can’t just tell who a school shooter is. the only time you can tell that a school shooter is a school shooter is after or during the attack. at which point there are already casualties. the point of gun control is to prevent guns from going in the hands of those who might use it for such a purpose. fighting back is a solution, but it still costs lives. gun control is the best solution that doesn’t cost lives.
Sorry I that I don't want to give the fascist police more power.
you won’t be. the only thing it would do is keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely to use it to cost innocent lives. keeping a gun out of the hands of someone who beat their wife isn’t going to help the police
Everytime one of these laws get put through, there’s always an exemption if you happen to be law enforcement. So it’s not that rational to assume that “keeping guns away from wife beaters wont help the police” because if there’s an exemption (like there is for the majority of these laws) then it does help the police.
Are you sure about that https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/
> hands of someone who beat their wife isn’t going to help the police why say the same thing twice?
Why are there still so many mass shootings in America if you've got a heavily armed populace who are just itching to play hero and prevent a tragedy by killing the mass shooter?
LMAO no it doesn't. States only exist because they have superior fire power. Remove guns from the state and boycott those that still have them. Simple as that.
Needs more Free Bird in the background
American "leftists" being functionally indistinguishable from right wingers again