Oooooh, complicated that one.
There are anarchists that looooooove their guns and think gun control is how the state prevents revolution and that arming all the anarchists is how we get revolution.
And then there’s anarchists that believe having lots of privately owned guns is not good for our communities and only leads to the state arming themselves to the teeth (and since it can not claim to own all those massive weapons to kill it’s own population, using them abroad) and that the US massive military spending is a direct result of it’s gun ownership’s policy.
And then there’s anarchists that believe it’s best to try to achieve change without armed struggle and those that believe change will only be achieved through armed struggle.
I haven’t found a lot of writing on this. Generally those in favor of guns are louder about it so there’s a little more writing on that, mostly from the US. From the anarchist library:
I’ve pondered over the ‘but where do I stand on this?’ for a while and I think it’s here:
On a day to day basis legal guns do not make our lives safer or better and only make the results of our oppression more violent. (Example: the US) The idea of guns as an ‘equalizer’ for people without physical strength has long since proven to not actually work and most enthusiastic gun owners are exactly the kind of people making us less safe.
So the only reason some anarchists might be in favor of legal guns would be to be able to overthrow the state. Since the state will have guns no matter what, it’s better to have some too, right?
But if guns are legal those the state deems trustworthy will have access to guns. And many of those the state deems not trustworthy and can deny guns (those who have been criminalized, those with mental illnesses or addictions, those without identity documents, etc) will not have access to guns.
If armed violence is necessary to overthrow the state it is not desirable for those who are loyal to the state to have access to guns and those who are not loyal to the state to not have access to guns.
If guns are illegal, those too loyal to the state to break the law will not have access to guns, and those disloyal enough to the state to break the law will have access to guns. If armed violence is necessary to overthrow the state, that is a much more desirable situation.
Thus, it is better not to have legal gun ownerships and for anarchists commited to armed insurrection to own illegal guns. (which, if you’re thinking of doing illegal things with your guns, is better anyway).
That’s what I think for now anyway.
QueerAnarchism 