(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)
In the US, The police don’t protect people. They don’t actually have any obligations to do so. I am kinda wondering how the “police protecting” works out when say several big dudes kick your door in and bad-stuff you and your house. The gun owner defense themselves in that scenario, but the police-reliant folks…do what? Wait for the murder investigation to catch the baddies? It’s an odd predicament, given how awful guns can be and how pad they are for a society. As proven by stats from pro and anti-gun countries. Personally, I will continue to carry a pistol…even if it has only been used against a rabid racoon that was getting too close to the house. I don’t think civilians need dozens of insane weapons though. So I don’t know where that puts me on the spectrum. Gun user, and enjoyer, that recognizes they are a huge problem.
While the police should have that power. There should be a institution investigating and persuing police for their abuse of power
USA citizen here (unfortunately)
Guns are designed to kill, or at least cause harm.
I don’t think we should kill, or even cause the kind of harm that guns inflict.
∴ Guns shouldn’t exist.
I recognize this is a super idealistic approach, but this is just a “general concept of how a society should run.”
Yes, I’m taking into account hunting. We shouldn’t be killing non-human animals either. Sports is a more difficult problem to tackle for me, I recognize others like shooting for sporting events, and it’s not causing harm inherently. Might even be safer than American football, lol.
Having said that, a more realistic approach would be a gun buy back program and a slow phase out of guns for our police or at least a reduction / demilitarization of our police. I have no hope that this will happen, but wow, it’d be nice.
For the US I feel like this is a lost cause. Good luck trying to repeal the 2nd amendment. Cat’s out of the bag, the gun discussion happened in 1789, we’re like 249 years late. How do you close the pandora’s box?
Yeah, I mean a potential path could be a narrowing of how a “well regulated Militia” is defined. But I agree, it’s a fully lost cause.
What’s the point of an organized society and a government anyway? Not to care for each other and reduce harm, right? /s
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?
Not hard to get as in expensive, hard to get as in the amount of training and certifications you need in order to legally own a gun.
Yes, and I have understood it in the same way.
On the poor end:
Would you sponsor all these trainings and certificates for everybody who can’t afford them?On the rich end:
Don’t you think that as a rich person you could delegate most of the hassle to somebody you pay? (not saying to buy false certificates, but even that is thinkable)
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.
Hard to get doesn’t mean expensive. It means you can’t have it if you can’t handle it. Like a car. Nobody would give a driving license to a blind person. And nobody should have a gun permit if you are mentally unstable.
Expense is not the only way to make something hard to get, and gun laws have a long history of being made in a way that intentionally or unintentionally makes it difficult for minorities.
Many of the historical laws they found were virulently racist, restricting access to weaponry for enslaved people, Indigenous Americans and other racial minorities.
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.
Hell no, as few people as possible should have guns. Regular police don’t even need them.
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.
I think we should get rid of guns entirely and go back to hand-to-hand combat with swords and clubs. Guns make it too easy. I want a challenge.
back to hand-to-hand combat with swords and clubs.
How very nice!
I’m going to invent black powder then, so I become the boss!
Hand to hand combat is very unequal. If you get lucky, you have the genes that naturally make you stronger.
Guns equalize the playing field.
Also, you can’t hand-to-hand a bear. Humans aren’t the only threat that exists.
Also, you can’t hand-to-hand a bear.
Polearms > Bear arms
Bring back the phalanx.
It’s a very small percentage of people who would come across a bear and need a weapon. Here in eastern us, you shouldn’t have them for black bears. However I can see long guns in places with grizzlies …… im not convinced it useful, but I can understand feeling threatened
First time I bought a firearm in my life (after 40 years on this earth) was specifically protection from bears when I moved to Alaska.
I get that I’m part of that very small percentage, but it’s funny to be pointed out for it when where I am it is super common (also common to see people strapped on hiking trails with their kids and dogs).
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
-
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.
As a bonus; police will consider anyone with a gun visible as a threat and act before things happen. There is no such possibility in th US due to the rate of civilian gun ownership.
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.
I like this because it highlights how it’s not an all-or-none question. There are plenty of countries with low firearm deaths that allow some guns but restrict others.
Yes, the question itself is too simplistic for a meaningful answer without lots of conditions and qualifications. It just invites highly polarized apples vs oranges arguments.
I think that people should be able to have guns to defend themselves. I also think that, in almost all circumstances, people should not use guns to defend themselves.
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.
