(As a general concept of how a society should run, not intended as a US-specific question.)
I sometimes see people on the internet saying that giving people easy access to guns is too risky and there should be stricter gun control, while simultaneously wanting to abolish the police? I’m just confused on what people really want?
You cant both abolish the police and then also disarm the citizens, gotta pick one. So which is it, internet? Self-policing with guns? Or reform the police?
[Please state what country you’re in]
---
(Also its funny how the far-right of the US is both pro-gun and pro-police, I’m confused by that as well)
The key flaw in the logic is that American police are there to protect people. They aren’t.
https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/
Americans tend to forget that very few countries have outright banned guns. What we have is gun control, which means that you have to qualify for owning a gun, but as soon as you do that, you can own a gun.
Guns should be available, but hard to get, and hard to keep.
Probably harder to get than a driver’s license.
It’s depressing to hear that’s not already the case.
I mean… in Non-North-American Western Countries, that’s already a thing, right?
Edit:
Australia + Many countries in Europe requires permits and that requires a “good reason”. From what I heard, the police is usally much less shitty than the US counterpart.
I might be wrong, but I believe ONE OF the reasons why American police is so shitty is because every citizen might be—and often is—carrying a gun. This causes stress in the police force, higher chances of casualties among them as compared to other countries, so it builds feelings of fear and “acting first, asking later” in most situations.
Sure, many of them are also power-tripping assholes on top of that.
Maybe they shouldn’t become cops then.
Yep! I wasn’t justifying them.
Indirectly. They use the fact that people could be armed to justify their behavior, especially the overuse of ‘he’s got a gun’ when the person doesn’t. But many people interact with other people in dangerous situations while attempting to deescalate which the police tend to use the possibility as justification for escalating violence.
Mental health professional: talk down the person who is having a crisis
Police: shoot while claiming they are afraid for their life from an unarmed 12 year old
available, but hard to get
Then only the rich can have guns.
No sure if that’s what you had in mind?
Maybe this is what they had in mind.
Don’t put that racist shit on me.
Any time something is hard to get then it is available to whoever has power and denied to minorities. While you may not have intended to mean that, it is the end result of the approach you are promoting.
How do you propose keeping guns away from people prone to violence, criminals, and the insane?
There is a massive gap between handing out guns in happy meals and being hard to get.
Committing violent crimes or being of unsound mind are perfectly fine reasons for restricting possession as long as there is due process and the possibility of restoring the rights under certain conditions. If someone is charged with a violent crime then they shouldn’t have possession of firearms until that matter is settled.
There will always be the cases where someone has zero history of violence before they commit a crime so it wouldn’t be perfect, but even in the US most states have restrictions based on obvious reasons someone shouldn’t have a gun.
Cool, what about a nailgun? You ever see what they can do? Better make them harder to get. /s
There are tools for nailing things and tools for killing things.
K, nail someone in the head and ask em how they feel afterwards.
We literally use a nailgun to kill cattle before slaughtering them.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
I’m going throw something out there. Should people who own firearms be required to have some kind of insurance (like car or home owners) on case of accidents or theft? Also I’m in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.
Personally I wholly believe that gun owners should be held as accomplice to any crimes committed with their stolen firearms if it was acquired through negligence.
Edit to say I’m a gun owner.
So a friend borrows your car, and runs someone over, do you feel the same way?
Or if someone steals a hammer out of your toolbox and beats someone to death?
I understand, and I’m all for responsible gun ownership, but what you’re saying would be hard to prove and easy to use as a weapon against certain people.
Short answer is yes. If I made the decision to loan my car to someone and they intentionally committed a crime with it, I think I should be investigated for my involvement. If it turns out I had no reason to suspect this was going on, cool. If it turns out this was a problem waiting to happen, then I’m responsible for my role in it.
Now the hammer is a bit of a mess, because it is not difficult to acquire a hammer so you would have a hard time saying the crime couldn’t have been committed if not for my specific hammer.
What if you have a safe and the thief is a locksmith and stole your gun?
I mean I think by this logic, people who don’t lock their car doors and the car gets stolen/carjacked, the car owner would face the consequences of whatever the thieves used it for?
(Genuinely asking)
It’s right there in the comment. You took the effort to store your guns in the manner required by the law and they got stolen by someone with markedly more skill than average. You’re not to blame. Now if you leave your gun in your toolbox in the back of your truck or casually on your night stand, there’s a problem and it isn’t the skill level of burglars.
Should people who own firearms be required to have some kind of insurance
Yes, if you
-
allow poor people to have them, or
-
if you allow stupid people to have them, or
-
if you allow people who sometimes make mistakes to have them
-
In the 2021, the most recent year I could find easy data for, the UK had 4.7 deaths by firearms per 10,000,000 inhabitants. That’s a pretty low rate (see here for more detail and comparisons with other countries). Most of the police here don’t have guns. Most of the criminals here don’t have guns. Most of the civilians here don’t have guns.
I, also, don’t have a gun and would find it pretty difficult to legally get one. That said, in the last decade, I’ve been clay pigeon shooting with shotguns a few times and target shooting with rifles a couple of times. I don’t feel the need to tool up in my everyday life. If I want to go shooting, I can do, but I have no need or desire for a concealed carry permit for a handgun or any other firearm for self-defense purposes.
If you can get a gun to protect yourself, criminals are easily going to have guns too.
Simpler all around if nobody has guns.
Or, at the very least nobody should have a handgun. A full length rifle or shotgun is a lot harder to conceal when you are using it for nefarious purposes.
Citizens not having guns is not going to stop criminals from having guns
Japan says otherwise. Gun crime is practically non-existent, despite a population of over a hundred million people.
It’s unrealistic to apply this to the US given how many guns already exist, but it’s not actually impossible.
Yes it will. The idea thaat criminals will mass produce homemade firearms is nonsense. Even the cartels don’t do this at any scale.
I’m Toronto it’s like 13% of guns that are domestic, the other 87% are smuggled in from the unregulated shithole that is America, 0% are homemade.
Guns can now be 3d printed as we can see Luigi Mangione allegedly printed that gun
Yeah, but they’re not because no one wants to fire something that might blow up in their hand, and it’s not actually that easy to mass manufacture illegal guns, even with 3d printers and CNC machines.
Like I said, we all know you can make a homemade gun with online information. That has been the case for literally the last 2 decades. And yet, underground homemade gun manufacturing is virtually non existent, because guess what, it’s not that easy to do at scale in a way that won’t get you immediately caught and all your equipment and supplies impounded.
Literally every developers western country that bans guns has not seen any noticeable rise in homemade guns being used at any regular pace. In what world do you think Norwegian clubs are being shot up with homemade uzis?
A lot of guns are stolen. Also if there isn’t a big a market, manufacturers won’t make as many. Supply drops so does criminal possession.
Not that I’m advocating either way, just a counter to your point.
The genie is out of the bottle here, but a polite society would make guns unavailable for everyone. Guns have one purpose: to kill things. Who’s to decide who the “bad guys” and “good guys” are?
Who’s to decide who the “bad guys” and “good guys” are?
Probably the person with the gun.
Let’s just hope that there’s no such thing as “mental illness”, or “emotion”, that could make a “good guy” want to do something “not good”.
Not fully, no. My understanding is that the available data of countries with and without general-citizen gun ownership, all else being equal, shows that normal issues (crime, personal conflicts, …) becomes gun-involved issues a lot more frequently so apparently it does help
Uninventing guns is not actually one of the options. The police are definitely going to have them, because if they didn’t they’d be under threat from upstarts with a 3D printer or just a lathe, and they know it.
Nobody said anything about removing them from police. I have no problem with police being armed.
It is technically possible to make every other gun illegal and force people to dispose of them. Again it’s unrealistic but its not impossible.
It’s also possible to eliminate all commercial ammo availability, and even most home production (by banning the sale of powder for reloading). Home powder products are inferior, and potentially even dangerous. Safe and functional casings are also extremely difficult to produce.
Would people try to get around these restrictions? Sure, but it would still dramatically reduce gun use.
Ah. It wasn’t clear your “nobody” excluded them.
I think there are people out there who are privileged enough, that they fully don’t realise the police aren’t just on TV or theoretical. All states must actively maintain a monopoly on violence.
Germany: I’m fine with the status quo. You really have to prove that you really need a gun to get it - Most Americans would simply not qualify under our rules. The Police has weapons, but they are much better trained than the American Gung-Ho, shoot first, ask questions later cops.
Former infantry. You fucking cosplayers are a danger to yourself and others.
Um, I mean, you should be able to get hand grenades. One each. And go camping with whiskey.
I think the right to have a gun should also include the legal requirement to take and pass a tactical shoot course. No point in having a gun if one can’t hit their target in a stressful situation. Paper target shooting isn’t good enough.
Should it be state funded? Or should only people who can afford it be allowed to exercise their rights?
User pay. Just like buying the gun, driving a car, a boating license, or a hunting license.
The last thing I want in an active shooter situation is someone with more money than skill waving a gun around making the situation worse.
If one has to pay for it then it isn’t a right.
Driving a car is a privilege.
In most countries, owning a gun isn’t a right, its a privilege.
I am aware of that, but this comment chain started with the context of it being a right.
OP also didn’t want this to be focused around USA gun rights.
This entire comment chain started with your comment that began with it as a right and the US has not been mentioned once.
I think the right to have a gun should also include the legal requirement to take and pass a tactical shoot course.
Sorry for engaging with your premise!
How about en exam on morals and ethics?
That sounds good. I once had a job interview where bud was trying to piss me off to see if I had a temper. Something like that could be useful as well.
I’ll go further, and say the text of the 2nd Amendment implies gun owners should be members of a well-regulated militia. I think every State Guard should accept anyone who applies, and give them basic training. In exchange for being part of the reserve, and passing firearm classes, you can keep and bear arms.
If you don’t want to be part of a well-regulated militia, no guns. If you can’t pass firearm training, no guns.
100% agree. This morning I was thinking about a reply (didn’t have time before leaving for work) along these lines. But more of reporting to any nearby active shooter situation and helping the cops in exchange for a free gun and training. I like your idea as well.
Brazil recently had an “experience” in getting more lax with gun restrictions. While people were mostly in favor of that before it came into effect, ~4 years later more people were against letting any idiot have a gun.
For every “CAC[1] kills a robber” there are dozens of “CAC kills family/wife/police/random person”. Not only that, with how lax the law got, said CACs also became a bridge to sell or loan guns to criminals, which would usually have to buy them off corrupt police or army. Overall, people feel less safe, because now any argument with a rando can end up with you being shot, even if you’re not even involved and just happened to be nearby
One thing to keep in mind is that most police forces exist to protect wealth. If you have wealth, you’ll be protected. If you don’t, you’re a target. Does the police need guns? Not always. Not every criminal is armed and not every armed criminal can only be taken on by “a good guy with a gun”
You cant both abolish the police and then also disarm the citizens, gotta pick one.
You can, but you also need to reorganize a lot of how society works, especially in regards to wealth distribution.
Caçador, Atirador, Colecionador (hunters, sport shooters, collectors) the term used in Brazil to denote civilians that can legally buy guns ↩︎
That’s certainly part of it - here in the US, police need fewer guns, harder to get, better training. They need to be demilitarized. I don’t think I’m naive about what police need to be able to handle, but all too often it seems like their first reaction is to start blasting. Most police interactions by far do not need a weapon. Most do not need the escalation.
And of course a big part of that needs to be restoring “qualified” to “qualified immunity”. The current blanket immunity makes bad situations worse
American, white, liberal, redneck gun nut here. If you’re talking about “defund the police”, that’s yet another idiot liberal slogan that misses the mark. The idea is to take police funds and pay for workers who can handle situations police should never have been sent to. Want to kill yourself? Call the cops!
The far right loves cops because cops are on their side, or are perceived to be. To put it bluntly, guns are for shooting marauding black people, not white people. See all the stories about white people being shocked when law enforcement doesn’t go their way? Yeah.
Also, I suspect people who are anti-gun have never had violence inflicted upon them, or cops who are far away, or haven’t had a bear wander in the dog door, or haven’t had an enraged redneck struggling to be polite because they’re visibly armed. In related news, my MAGA neighbor came stomping down here to kick my ass, turned right the fuck around when I went inside for my .45.
I could write all night on the subject, but let me leave it at this: Now is not the fucking time for Americans to disarm themselves. The only reason fascists haven’t run us completely over is that they know there will be a real chance we’ll fucking kill them. Look where the ICE raids are happening, in the places where guns are the most suppressed.
Yes, this all sucks, but it’s where we’re at in America.
Also, I suspect people who are anti-gun have never had violence inflicted upon them
Have you considered that some have just had violence inflicted upon them by people with guns?
I understand your point but guns are a great equalizer for anyone who isn’t a young, strong male. Gun vs gun is more equal than fist vs fist or whatever else would be happening instead.
Except that when you allow guns to be purchased widely, malcontents will always purchase them in greater quantities and more frequently, by nature of being malcontents and attracted to something that gives them more power.
Because guns are not inherently an equalizer, they are just a way of giving someone an enormous amount of deadly power. If you give two people that same enormous amount of deadly power then it can equalize them compared to where they were before, but that is the only case where they equalize things, and they’ve equalized them by making them both twitchy dangerous live grenades.
I.e. I can equalize milk that’s a month old and milk that I just bought by leaving them both in the sun for a few hours. That doesn’t mean I’ve made society better or safer. Like I said, the arguments for gun ownership only ever make sense in an anecdotal one off scenario. Every single one falls apart when you examine its effects at a society wide, systemic level.
If i take a look at north eu countries where’s the lowest crime rates that im aware of. I can see that it’s really hard to get gun and it’s not for self defence. Also the police have a 2,5+ years training. If you compare it with the most gun loving country you see where the problem lies. Worth comparing the look and feel of prisons and the number of prisons per population. So yh that’s my view. Im from Hungary (pretty far right country for my mixed ass) lives in the UK different shit and stinks of a different odour lol
US here.
I think that if the police are allowed to have it, everyone should be allowed to have it. Police are not the military; they’re civilians. So all other civilians should have the same access cops get, or cops should get the same access that everyone else does.
I don’t think that police are technically considered civillians, although they are under civilian control (of the governor/mayor).
They are absolutely civilians, although they no longer believe they are. Technically the military is supposed to be under civilian control as well (e.g., the governor is supposed to have control of the national guard in their state, the president is supposed to control the six branches of the military).
Look at it this way: the military is not supposed to be used for civilian law enforcement. That very, very strongly implies that police are not military, and are hence civilian.
If that’s the case, then surely there’s nothing wrong with police have military weapons and using military tactics, right?
I’m not against gun ownership, but it needs to be regulated.
Compare it to your car. You need to prove your ability with a test, carry your license with you, register your vehicle, and in some places, it must pass an annual safety inspection. We do all this just to get to work and back, but I can stop at one of many stores within 10 miles of my house and buy armfuls of military hardware designed to do nothing but kill.
Handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are all you need. Small magazines, no burst or fully automatics. Everything gets registered.
Some extra context: There are a LOT of areas in the US that are rural enough that wildlife is a serious threat, and hunting is a sustainable option for meat. It makes no sense to tell those people they can’t have one.
You can buy a car at any age, with no insurance or license, drive it without on private land, and it can cross into any state in the nation.
You also cannot buy military hardware in 10 mins at your local store. All rifles in the USA that you purchase without a form 1 and a boat load of cash are bolt action or semi-auto. You cannot go to the store and buy a fully automatic or burst action rifle or handgun. I don’t know where you got your info from but it’s way way wrong.
Size of magazines also are a completely pointless exercise. Swapping a mag is a 1/2 second process, and with practice can get it down to even quicker.
I agree, take the word gun out of an argument and replace it with car or tool, something common.
If the argument no longer makes sense, neither does the argument.
The difference is that guns have only one purpose.
People can get hurt during an accident while using a tool, but for a gun, something gets hurt every time it’s used as intended.
I don’t think we should be using power tool regulations for guns.
A gun can be used in defense. I don’t understand the want to remove the one thing that gives you a chance at survival, while a literal fascist is in power right now…one that just built a concentration camp and sells merchandise to it like it’s funny…guns are dangerous, but they’re the only thing that equalizes everyone when force comes into play.
but they’re the only thing that equalizes everyone when force comes into play.
This is fucking idiotic.
Are you not aware that the government has bigger, better, and more autonomous guns than you do?
Tell that to the people of Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan…those bigger guns cannot patrol a street corner. Occupation requires soldiers.
You know how you change the people who support you into rebels? Bomb the house right next to theirs and kill a few of them as well as the rebels.
Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan
Lmao, you think they were fighting back with 9mm pistols that they carried to Walmart to feel tough?
Bruh those armies fought back with conventional military guns and mixtures of conventional military explosives and IEDs.
Exactly. A gun is not a car; it has no other purpose other than to kill. The “tool” argument is disingenuous at best.
Tbf, a hammer is also a tool with only one use, sometimes a job needs a specific tool. “Killing” just so happens to include self defense, if you happen to need to defend yourself it helps to have the best tool for the job instead of hammering a nail with your wrench.
A gun is not the only means of self defense; in fact, They’re terrible at it. Ironically, a hammer is probably a better tool for self defense.
Edit go ahead and downvote me, facts don’t care about your feelings.
274 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm
Ok, and how many defensive uses of a firearm occurred that year where the defender did not kill the attacker? Cases where the attacker was merely injured, or the defender missed, or the attacker ran off at the sight of the firearm? Why are those entirely omitted, does it only count as self defense if the attacker dies, not if one successfully stops the attack without a justifiable homicide?
And while we’re at it, how many justifiable homicides occurred that year with your defensive weapon of choice, The Hammer? If the metric used to determine a weapon’s viability for defense is simply justifiable homicides/yr, blind bet: it’s less than 274.
Btw
only 1.1 percent of victims of attempted or completed violent crimes used a firearm,
While around 45% of people own a gun, only 21% of people carry a gun ever, and even less carry everywhere always, and this figure doesn’t take into account whether or not the victims had a gun on them with which to defend themselves. This stat is entirely meaningless without controling for that.
and only 0.3 percent of victims of attempted or completed property crimes used a firearm.
Well that’s illegal unless you’re in Texas at night, so, unless that’s all they’re counting this makes me further question the voracity of the study. You’re telling me that 0.3 percent of people in the study successfully justifiably killed someone for something that is illegal to kill people for? That’s not how this works lol.
My list of suggestions for regulations does not mean that some of them aren’t already in effect.
As for the rest: ok.
You do not need handguns. Handguns are the biggest problem.
U.S.
If police were the honest, fair, law-abiding heroes they’re presented as, this would be a much simpler question.
Ideally, I’d choose to replace the police (not merely slap an “under new management” banner on the police station) with a MUCH more transparent and just organization that genuinely serves and protects the public.
I also don’t think there’s enough of an emphasis on safety regarding public ownership of guns. All laws need to be tightened, standardized between states, and loopholes need to be firmly closed. I know we Americans have been taught that gun ownership is an important constitutional right, but I think that in 250 years, guns have proven to do much more harm than good. Decisions on gun laws need to make public safety their primary consideration.
