There is a dangerous confusion 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 peace advocates 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.
Gun control legislation is sold as a measure to protect the innocent from violent criminals, but like most government actions the outcome is actually the complete opposite of the stated goal. These kinds of measures actually give violent criminals the upper hand by removing the average citizen’s first line of defense. It seems obvious that violent criminals will be more inclined to attack others when they are less likely to encounter any kind of resistance. Most people who intend to do harm with guns will not obey laws having them in the first place. This being the case we can determine quite easily that gun control policies encourage violence and chaos within any society.
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.
Please upvote, follow and resteem if you enjoyed my article and I will return the favor in the comments, even if you happen to disagree with me, I welcome and upvote all good discussion!
John Vibes is an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. John just won a 3-year-long battle with cancer, and will be working to help others through his experience, if you wish to contribute to his medical bills consider subscribing to his podcast to support at https://www.patreon.com/johnvibes
Oh wow, I usually really like your posts, but I couldn't disagree more. The data shows that more guns equal more violence. Australia is a classic example of a modern nation that successfully disarmed and has enjoyed more peace, not less.
And if we are talking about America, no amount of weapons is going to counter the most powerful military in the history of mankind, the US defense budget equals the next 8 or so nations combined. The US has very lax gun regulation (even people in the terrorist watch list can get guns) and the highest rate of gun ownership, according to your logic it should be the safest from the government, instead the rates of murder by cop, incarceration, etc are among the worst in the world. Common sense gun regulation would bring more peace, not less.
You're forgetting that the most powerful military in the world was defeated in Vietnam. That being said, I'm not against common sense gun regulations as a practical matter, but to take it too far would put criminals in government or otherwise in charge.
The best answer to this issue is decentralization. Terrorism is a byproduct of government.
I'd argue terrorism can be largely a byproduct of oppression and repression, which are not always carried out by governments.
Government is just a form of reification that takes something that is imaginary and makes it appear real. What you really have are a bunch of terrorists who are legitimized and then those who aren't legitimized. ISIS for example is a government considered illegitimate by the USA and ISIS would say the same of the US Government. What justifies the USA dropping bombs on ISIL? What justifies ISIL attacking USA? Nothing.
In your example, both sides seek to oppress and engage in repression. It's just that ISIS represses women in burka's, etc while the USA oppresses those who don't agree with the banking system (#Occupy).
All excellent points, agree 100%. Not to mention the fact that gun control was created to suppress the poor and minorities, an inherently racist policy, and that the number one cause of death in the last century was not crime or war but being killed by your own authoritarian government after they instituted strict civilian gun control. Chairman Mao said "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun" then he took away everyone's guns and killed millions of his own people.
I assembled some charts about how more guns and more gun rights in America correlates with fewer gun homicides
He was a very respected person
My favorite leader.
There are two narratives to this story. One side supporting complete gun control and the other one is in favor of keeping some guns to protect themselves. Rejecting one narrative outrightly is a difficult thing. But if the state is taking away the weapons, how it will make sure no one has the access to it? Individuals can get access and it means disaster.
The problem is that not only the US but also many other countries have been saturated with weapons, I live in Honduras guns are very easily acquired, not legally but you can buy one without having to go too far. But in a place where guns are not available, introducing guns is kind of dumb, during the 70's I lived on a small island off of the coast of Honduras, population about 2,500 in four years there was only one murder/suicide, two people dead because the guy, who was a policeman had some terminal illness and killed his wife and then himself, see he had a weapon because he was a policeman. But after I left guns were slowly introduced and murders became much more common, so yes guns do have an incidence on murders, unfortunately the gun industry has made so many, and sold them to so many people that now it is practically impossible to eradicate them, thus your article is right, but only because by mistake guns were allowed into the mainstream culture.
Guns in America have been part of part of the culture since day one.
In 1935, China established and implemented gun control, and disarmed its citizens. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
lol, I was just saying how Mao said "political power grows from the barrel of a gun" then took away everyone's guns and killed millions of his own people!
Living in the uk it can somethimes be hard to undrstand fully the pros and cons of gun control as only farmers and police armed response unit has guns. (And a small percentage of criminals in cities)
The situation america finds itself in, i can say with absolute certainty that i would carry a firearm were i a citizen. I feel for you guys... i really do.
Hey @johnvibes,
I think if anyone has their personal guns than it is for there security. So it is not a big deal to have a gun
This position is appealing, and I do largely agree with it.
However, we all believe in gun control at some level. We can agree that loaded firearms shouldn't be left unattended around children. That's gun control. Codifying that into laws that say that guns and ammo shouldn't be sold to children or those with violent history doesn't strike me as so problematic.
I love Steemit because I hear so much more depth than the average rhetoric around topics like this.
As much as I am a pacifist, I also deeply agree with Nahko when he sings, "Well I will learn to be peaceful, but I keep my knife at my side"
We CANNOT abdicate responsibility for ourselves and each other on a micro level, by turning over our authority and autonomy to "The System". Even if we do think The System is here to protect us and help us (I think otherwise)....the fact is that they're a SYSTEM. It's not the same as having human beings coming together to help and protect each other because they live in community and are familiar with each other's needs and issues.
A faceless corporate conglomerate will always work toward homogenization of the masses, and inherent in that goal is the fact that some "rogue outliers" will be left behind, deleted, and forgotten.
The thing is, humanity is not a faceless conglomerate, an amoeba who won't miss the bits of ectoplasm that are cut off when we're sliced by the cookie-cutter laws they apply.
People are individuals, not machines--and so we can't thrive when we're treated like robots.