 |
| Nobel Peace Prize? Anthony Freda Art |
Activist Post
There is a dangerous confusion among many pacifists that government gun control will bring us a more peaceful society, but sadly this is far from true. I personally find myself in a rare but growing group of pacifists who oppose any kind of gun control policies whatsoever. It may seem counter intuitive to say that more people having more guns will make us safer, but history shows us that this is actually the case.
When gun control legislation is put into place, every gun in the civilization does not disappear; they are not thrown into some magical vortex where they will never be seen again. Those guns aren’t destroyed, and they are certainly not “controlled”, they are simply moved. They are taken from millions of individuals and placed in the hands of one group.
There are numerous problems with this situation, so let’s just get the obvious ones out of the way first. History has shown us in many different cases that as the disparity in arms between a government and society grows, the more authoritarian that regime becomes. Take your pick of any dictatorship throughout history and you will find that disarming a population is one of the steps that are essential when establishing a tyrannical control system. From Nazi Germany to the Communist empires of China and Russia, and even on the fiefdoms of the Middle Ages, authoritarian rulers made it a priority to ensure that they had their citizens out armed.
The idea wasn’t necessarily to keep the peasants from revolting, although that is a factor that eventually comes to into play as a dictatorship takes its inevitable turn down the path of self-destruction. The main effect that this disparity in force causes is a psychological one; it establishes the general idea that an individual is powerless in comparison to the State and its agents, thus creating an atmosphere where people thoughtlessly submit to authority out of their natural and sometimes unconscious desire for self-preservation. This aspect of gun confiscation has been covered extensively by many different researchers and activists over the years, but what is talked about even less often is the realistic benefits that can come from mass decentralized gun ownership.
One point that is often overlooked in the mainstream discourse is how gun control laws actually empower violent criminals and encourage them to prey on the innocent, disarmed people who are dependent upon the corrupt and incompetent police force for their protection. It has often been said that “when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns”, and this statement rings true for the criminals in the street and the criminals in the government as well. Not only is a disarmed population preyed upon by tyrannical governments, but they are also preyed upon by violent criminals who get surprisingly inventive during times of gun prohibition.
Even if you believe that the police are put here to help and protect us, which they are not, you must at least admit that they rarely prevent violent crime from happening; their job is only to hunt down and punish the accused party after the fact. Therefore, they cannot be depended upon in a random encounter you have with an attacker, you need to have some means of self-defense.
Even more importantly, the fact that anyone walking down the street could be armed, makes any mugger think twice before attacking someone. On the other hand, when very few people in a society are armed, the reward far outweighs the risk for those who seek to violate the rights and property of others.
J.G. Vibes is an author, and artist -- with an established record label. In addition to featuring a wide variety of activist information, his company Good Vibes Promotions hosts electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his forthcoming book Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance, at his website. AOTMR will be released in March 2012, thanks to Leilah Publications. This project features nearly 100 different essays, just like this one, that cover a wide variety of topics. These essays give historical and philosophical insight into the many important issues that our generation faces. From banking cartels and alternative currency to eugenics and the drug war, AOTMR offers a complete and comprehensive breakdown of the counter culture’s struggle.
Please help us combat censorship: vote for this story on Reddit -- http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/pxprd/why_pacifists_should_support_private_gun_ownership/
BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
10 comments:
The firearm is the most liberating invention in human history. The only other one that comes close is the internet.
If the US largely hands in their guns, Obama will not have any competition for whatever he wants to lay on the populace. The public having a gun is the equalizer against what the government wants to foist on the public. Without guns, goverment can do whatever they want, don't fall for their good intentions. Their intentions are the running of a dictatorship.
When it comes to arming to become sheepdogs, 'WOLVES' guised in sheep-clothing are first to resist/refrain/revolt.
Sheep must become sheep-dogs to keep WOLVES at-bay!
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/640/393/Sheep,_wolves,_sheepdogs_and_paradigm_shift.html
What and how-much to ARM, rests on collective community/society understanding!
This is pure crap. All evidence indicates that the more guns, the less restricted, the more gun murders.
This is true internationally, where nations with strict gun control (and where gun ownership is privilege, not a right), as in Europe, have a much lower rate than those places where guns, and relaxed rules, are abundant. For instance, nations like Spain and Austria have only 15% of the murders as places like the US, with 1/3 of all private guns in the world (with 3% popultion). Canada with 1/3 the guns has 1/3 the murders.
And within the US, the southern states have more guns, more state executions, and more murders than other states. The more guns, the more murders: this is the lesson the evidence, which anyone can check at Nationmaster.com and Wikipedia, where the data is gathered.
The UK, with very strict rules and very rare public ownership of guns is denounced by gun advocates because "now only criminals have guns." But in fact, there are only 1/4 as many homicides (most are by gun) in the UK as in the US, with its mountain of guns.
On a broader, historical scale, a Harvard study of 2000 arms races over the past 2000 years showed that in 98% of the cases, the result was war.
The myth that a society where everyone has a gun is a polite society is refuted by the factual evidence, which clearly shows: the more guns, the more homicides. In Spain, fewer than 100 murders occur each year; in the US, there are 15,000 murders. The facts speak for themselves.
As a pacifist, I know, from the evidence, that the fewer guns, the less violence. Gun ownership in the US is conditioned on a premise no longer viable: the necessity of a "well-regulated" militia (in the absence of a standing army). Since that premise is invalid today, the "right" to own a gun is no longer valid.
As a vegan I also oppose hunting. I can see no rational use for guns, except to increase the likelihood of violence. Guns have one reason: to kill. But remember: Thou shalt not kill.
Non-violent resistance toppled the British Empire in India and the forces of Jim Crow in the US, as well as ending the dictatorship of Marcos in the Phillipines, etc. Pacifism always works for arms reduction and the use of positive forces like love, courage, and solidarity. There is no logical way to embrace non-violence AND the gun culture.
As a pacifist myself, I have no issue whatsoever with private gun ownership. In fact, I vehemently oppose government intrusion into this matter, whether specific training or registration or what have you.
We are delusional to think terrorism (other than the state-sponsored variety) is rampant and on the cusp of overtaking the world. Would most people prefer we allow folks easy access to three sticks of dynamite and a detonator rather than a firearm*? Yet we do this already, in effect, by urging virtually everyone to drive a car (Five gallons of gasoline is equivalent to a stick of dynamite). And this example doesn't even factor in the battering ram power of a ton of steal. Nor does it consider the easy and immediate access to hundreds and thousands of gallons of contained gasoline at the filling station by anyone at all.
If terrorism was in our DNA as government wishes us to believe, we'd have ruined the place long ago. So after discharging ourselves of the dissonance, one has to ask, "What is the true purpose of state in wanting to confiscate firearms?" It's certainly not to protect the people from the people.
* an example given by John Taylor Gatto in his book The Underground History of American Education.
The elites always win. Whether Bush or Obama puppets appear on TV to pretend to rule us, half the people will support them and half will hate them. The stupidity of supporting either team is hard to measure.
Gun control is one of the obvious elite divide and rule games being run on us. The Feb 20, 11:13 comment makes a good summary of how guns cause misery and do NOT make us safer. And any gun lovers who fantasize about defending their land and families from government agents would do well to remember that drones feel no pain.
Guns will not keep you safe.
Trivia question, who made billion$$ more money for big gun corporate swine and generated billions more tax revenue for Uncle Sam due to gun sales? President Obama of course.
The facts are here.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/the-greatest-gun-salesman-in-america-president-barack-obama.html
God has created man!
But Samuel Colt made him equal!
J.G.- First, you say gun control will bring about a "disparity of arms" between the people and its government. Do you own a tank, or anti-tank weaponry? Do you have SAMs? You're delusional to think that anything you own would strike fear in the hearts of those you think you're keeping at bay.
Second, the possibility of resistance by victims will only lead to a "shoot first, rob later" mentality by muggers. You have no chance of defending yourself if a person walks up behind you and places a gun to your head.
That said, gun ownership IS a deterrent against home invasion. Sure, the gun death vs. gun ownership stat is telling; but so is robbery vs. gun ownership - even state to state.
To the verbose anonymous vegan, you may have decided that using animals for food is wrong (whatever your individual motives), but exactly nothing about that decision gives you the right to speak for others. If you don't see a use for guns, don't own them - but others are going to continue to hunt (for food, for population control, for tradition, for sport) and you should accept that. Guns aren't going anywhere, so if you want to get your way, your way has to be less extreme. Regulation, not relegation.
"Do you own a tank, or anti-tank weaponry?"
The tank driver will eventually have to get out of his tank..
Also, yes, yes I do own anti tank technology. It is called a shovel....
The French resistance in WWII used small caliber .22 rifles and sniped the Germans in the cities. There is a million way to fight big Armies. Ask the Vietnamese. They have fought off China a bunch of times the French and the USA.
Post a Comment