The US and Guns

Yet, again the US is subject to another catastrophe, as one of its citizens unleashes the power of the gun to kill dozens of people, and injure hundreds more, apparently with no reason. Yet, again the media frame the discussion in terms of a dichotomy between the liberal hostility to the right to bear arms, and the conservative demand for each individual to own and carry a gun. It is a false dichotomy.

The liberals are quite right to point out that none of the arguments of the conservatives, epitomised by the NRA, suggesting that the individual possession of guns saves lives, stand up. None of those killed in Las Vegas could have saved their lives by having a gun to defend themselves, because their assassin was too far away, hidden, and already unleashing huge firepower against them, with an automatic weapon. It was rather the right of their assassin to own such a weapon that was the direct and immediate cause of them being killed.

But, the conservatives are also right to point out that it isn't guns that kill people, but people that kill people. Numerous recent events show that its not necessary to own a gun to be a mass murderer. The simple use of a car or van to mow down innocent pedestrians is an easy way to kill large numbers of people; the use of explosives can kill and maim large numbers; indeed, we have seen mentally disturbed people who are surgeons kill and mutilate patients, and so on. The argument of the liberals is that instead of individuals having guns, to protect themselves, they should instead rely on the state to provide them with such protection.

But, if you are a young black man, particularly in the US, such a suggestion must ring rather hollow, given the number who have been shot by the police. Indeed, the reason that the US introduced the Second Amendment to its constitution, was precisely because of the recognition of the dangers of an all powerful state, with a monopoly of armed force that could be used against its own citizens. Rather like the citizens of Catalunya, in recent days, the Americans had seen the consequence of their colonial master, the British state, having such a monopoly of force, and so arranged their affairs to try to prevent such a situation arising in their own Republic.

Of course, however, the conservatives only ever quote one bit of the Second Amendment. It does not at all talk about individuals owning guns. It says,

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In other words, the clear intention is that rather than the state having a monopoly of violence, via a standing army, the citizens themselves should be organised in a citizens militia, as indeed they were organised to fight the British state. Moreover, it is not to be any old rag-tag militia, but a “well regulated militia”, which necessarily means that it be based upon some form of democratic collective organisation, that prevents individuals from holding weapons and acting as mavericks outside the regulation of that militia.

A well regulated militia that is the product of, and under the democratic control of, citizens in each area, and which thereby controls who is a part of it, who has access to weapons, and under what conditions, is clearly a completely different thing, to individuals simply owning guns, and using them outside of any kind of militia, and any kind of regulation. Indeed, such militia exist in Switzerland, for example, where the whole populace are trained in such weapons, and take part in the militia without any of the problems that the US suffers. Engels also recommended a similar approach, as being absolutely necessary, as a corollary to universal suffrage.

“The more workers who are trained in the use of weapons the better. Universal conscription is the necessary and natural corollary of universal suffrage; it puts the voters in the position of being able to enforce their decisions gun in hand against any attempt at a coup d'état.”

(The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party)

Indeed, if we are to protect ourselves, as workers and citizens, not only against the potential for such a coup d'etat by the ruling class, but also against the increasingly random threats of terrorists, the need for such a militia is increasingly obvious. The state can never have the resources based upon a standing army or a standing police force to be able to provide the kind of constant vigilance and protection against terrorist attacks. In fact, the standing army almost by definition tends to be more concerned with acting offensively rather than defensively. The military is based upon weapons useful only to attack other countries, or people in other countries, and that military is most frequently stationed abroad, or on naval vessels patrolling the world's oceans, rather than protecting UK citizens. Separated from the citizenry, in general, the only way that the state can organise surveillance of potential threats is via the use of secret police and security services, which by definition of being secret are largely outside any kind of democratic control and regulation, which makes them immediately a potential danger for civil society.

The US Second Amendment, in calling for such a well regulated militia, does indeed set out the basis upon which both the danger that the state itself represents to civil society, and the danger of external threats can be dealt with via democratic means. Of course, that does not mean that it can prevent every attack. It would not prevent, of itself, the kind of attack seen in Las Vegas. But, if the provision of weapons was limited to only those who were a part of such a well regulated militia, it would drastically reduce the quantity of such weapons circulating in society.

Again, it would not stop someone using a car or van to mow down pedestrians, but the answer to that, in any case, even in relation to road accidents, is that pedestrians and cyclists should be physically separated from the road and vehicles. Moreover, the development of self-driving vehicles will itself remove that problem in the next few years, as vehicles will be prevented from collisions, by their own software. It would not stop people with mental health problems from committing various attacks, but that illustrates the extent to which society needs to devote resources to treating people with mental health problems, rather than as often happens now, leaving such people to fend for themselves. 

The answer to the kind of attack seen in Las Vegas is not to place even greater reliance upon the state, and thereby to strengthen its position as against civil society, but to further strengthen the position of civil society, by creating a democratic and well-regulated citizen's militia. Of course, it will be argued that in some places, that militia may be comprised of unsavoury elements, and fascists. That is the challenge of democracy. It means that we have to win the battle of democracy, it means that everywhere, we have to work to undermine the power of such unsavoury elements, who, in any case, will seek to exert their own power and influence. With over 600,000 members, with millions more within the trades unions and co-operative movement, we have every opportunity to turn outwards to the workers communities, and workplaces so as to win that battle of democracy in every corner of society.