I thought I'd go for the unemotive subject of guns ;-), but would like to direct the question toward advocates of stateless socialism.State socialists, right, left and centre, would naturally oppose the right of individuals to defend themselves, and specifically to own any means to do so, namely guns. Why? Well the last thing a social engineer wants is a populace whom, if they disagree with what they call 'the good of the people' could actually offer genuine resistence. This is the cornerstone to the some of the other things statists dont want, namely for children to be educated in a way not approved by them, for people to associate and trade without their say-so etc. Statists also disagree with the notion that an individual owns his own mind & body, as evidenced by statists use of conscription, taxes, and regulation of private lives and freedoms to reinforce this message. There are also vested interests in gun banning, such as the police beaurocracy who might see a drop in their necessity and status were civilians able to defend themselves and not become dependant upon the state to do so.
To gain public support for banning guns its necessary to spread an number of fallacious beliefs such as "The U.S. has a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns", "When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach", "If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other", "The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense" and the ommision of any stories or research regarding sucessful self defence using a gun. Such fallacies and ommissions are grossly, life costingly, misleading.
A person or group who seeks to control what you think and do would like to keep you helpless, unable to defend yourself. Such persons intend to keep the upper hand specifically because violence (threat or actual) is the final means of controlling others.
Stateless Socialists, if I understand what is being said, must therefore support the right to self defence. If this right is to mean anything, an individual must also have the right to own and use the means to self defence, namely a gun. Red Deathy has done well to explain how a commune based world society requires voluntary agreement to function, and that disruption threatens it. Although both libertarians and stateless socialist argue that 'their system' will reduce crime rates, neither would be wise to claim it would make crime a thing of the past. Criminals will still exist and peoples lives will still be threatened by violence initiated by others.
We should premise any arguments with the knowledge that guns cannot be actually banned, that any kind of prohibition fails and infact just produces criminalised black markets. That the only people who would be unable to access guns following a ban would be people unwilling to break the law. Hence gun control is more correctly termed victim disarmament.
Well? If you believe that stateless socialism is the way to go then do you agree with my contention, that you will find poeple having access to the means to self defence perfectly resonent with such socialism?
If you disagree with stateless socialism then I already understand why you disagree with poeple having access to the means to self defence and we can link to the thousands of online arguments of both 'sides' ad nauseum if we wish, but it would be repetitive!
