Submitted by lettuceLeafer in guns (edited )

As someone who has a history of abivilence to hurting others on an emotional level I figured it wouldnt mind using said skill for benefits of myself and others. So as I decide with anything I study and do my research. Now gun use in America is dominated by the concept of self defense.

Now there are two main situations where one would use a gun for self defense. Most likely a conceal carried pistol for in public and arround ones home and less likely in the situation on an attack on a home or home intruders with a rifle or shotgun. Now the second is far less likely and I have already said my peace on why killing home intruders is fucked up.

Now I don't really believe in the sanctity of lufeor that life really had value and should be preserved. So my argument will largely center around archy. Now for the begginer and basically to those not really well trained in firearms the problem isn't very obvious. If someone attacks u and u shoot them dead there is no issue.

Let's run a couple scenarios of a situation which would look anarchist to those who lack proper firearm and self defense knowledge. CW mention of fictional hate crimes.

So let's say a trans woman is at the store. She is carrying a 9mm pistol with hollow point ammo. She has a good holster and proper concealment and has great awareness of her souroundings. I'll use Walmart as the layout of said stores is fairly common and would have less explaination needed for most Americans as that's who this discussion is really relevant for.

She is in the produce section tryin to decide between firm or extra firm tofu. There is no one in the produce isle and she has just entered the store and doesn't know how many people occupy it. Out of the corner of her eye she sees a man and his shopping car approaching. He comes close and kinda stares at her. Then starts to angrily say some transphobic shit. Now he is between her and the entrance. So she backs up and repositions so she isn't backed against a wall and about 10 foot away to be in a more effective self defense distance. She tries to deescalate but to no avail and he brandishes a gun and days I'm going to kill u.

According to appropriate self defense u don't wanna be the aggressor but u gain the advantage by being ready to explosively respond with lethal force. So she draws her gun and fires 3 rounds into the chest of the man and he falls. Now why would I say this isn't anarchist. Seems pretty unobjectionable right? Wrong

See the problem even with small pistol ammo that is hollow point penetration is still a factor. Much smaller than even a low power rifle but still massive. Sure if u hit your target a hollow point ammo most likely won't penetrate. But due to the reactive nature of self defense u will never be in an idea scenario. Let's say she fires 3 rounds and two hit and before the 3rd can land the man falls so it misses. Where does the bullet go. Well it keeps on fucking going.

And it's a Walmart do there are lots of sleeves and walls blocking visibility. Even with great awareness is pretty damn hard to know what's behind walls. And due to the lack of time u can't check. So the 3rd bullet will continue on and possible and potentially penetrate through a shelf or wall or whatever and possibly hit whoever's behind it.

And if u don't know if someones behind it u gambled with others safety. Prob would be nothing but could be a kid, woman nursing her baby ect ect. So in this situation the only reasonable way one could realistically fire a gun is that they are okay with the pretty low possibility of killing innocent people to save their own hide.

And let's be honest people are going to miss, things won't go ideal and there aren't many situation in self defense shooting where all bullets hit their target and don't over penetrate. And most situations where u will run into a threat there are going to be people around. Be it a suburb or an apartment.

In an urban or suburban setting if u walk outside your door, the 180 degrees most of the times the angles will head into another dwelling, bussiness, parked care or street where cars drive.

Because of these factors of limited info even if u do everything right, extremely limited reaction time, failures just happenings everyone and guns being a ranged weapon I would say they aren't really something I find to be to anarchist.

If killing a kid or a baby is an okay possibility to save ur own hide that feels cowardly and not anarchist. Now there are a few scenarios where u can be pretty damn u're, such as extremely rural or u are in a fully concrete basement where no one is inside where a gun would be useful. But it becomes so small the gun itself is useful in such a small amount of times that's it's just a waste to carry.

So idk, I've read a shit ton of manuals and have done some dry fires with not real guns and tbh, it's just not something appealing to my anarchist sensibilities. The risk albeit small to just main or kill random people to save my own hide makes me feel like a cop or a government official and I want nothing to do with it. And I think most people who carry guns havnt read enough or played out enough scenarios to have come to this conclusion so I wouldn't say it's a consciously being archist.

If u wanna gun to kill people in a nonreactive situation sure that's a discussion to be had but the whole arm yourself for self defense is not a anarchist policy in my eyes

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fool wrote

I don't think it actually relates to anarchism.

It may be considered irresponsible or "bad", but not really something anarchist or archist.

5

BeanFormat wrote

I fell like i get your point - tell me if this is close: as anarchists the only authority we're answerable to is the good of our communities, so collateral damages are an unacceptable risk:; states make that risk acceptable by saying it's justifiable homicide in the name of self defense. The law doesn't punish it , so statists think that means it's good notwithstanding its actual effect.

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

not quite. See my ideas center around me. People who get the legal right to kill criminals and endanger others around them to save their hide includes me. See I don't value others life but I value mine a lot. So people who will save their hide but endanger mine are a massive threat to my anarchy. I can't do anarchy if I get shot to death bc strangers think its okay to shoot me to save themself. So its not anarchist to stop me from doing anarchy for no good reason which is someone I don't care about saving their life I don't value

3

BeanFormat wrote

Huh, by that token couldnt someone use a firearm in self defense, heedless of collateral damages in an exercise of their own anarchic value of their own life versus others? If it's you /u/lettuceLeafer causing the collateral damage, and the people collaterally damaged don't matter to you, how does that scenario not fit your anarchy? I get how someone else shooting you stops you from doing anarchy, but the converse only matters if others adhere to the same principle. Like the principle is universal. Like if it's imposed by a state.

2

Slyone wrote

You know, as someone who owns a revolver, I was thinking about this post and wanted to go against this, but in all honesty my life isn’t that important. If I get killed unarmed, I’ll be a martyr in some way or another, right?

2