(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)
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.
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
-
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/
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.
New Zealand.
Our laws make carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon (in self defence or not) a crime - whether it’s a gun, sword, pepper spray, cricket bat, screwdriver, or lollipop stick. This makes sure that when someone robs a corner store the owner gets jailed for having a baseball bat behind the counter. It’s absurd.
The law not only doesn’t equalise your chances, it actively forces you to be at a disadvantage when defending yourself, and by the time any police arrive the assailant is long gone. Most criminals don’t have guns (except for the multiple armed gangs of course), but plenty of them bring bladed weapons, there have been multiple cases of machete attacks.
I’m all for gun ownership for the purpose of property defence. Including strong legal defences for home and store owners repelling assailants.
I don’t think just anyone should be able to go and purchase a gun no questions asked, it should probably be tied to some kind of mandatory formal training, e.g. participation in army reserves. It should definitely be more difficult than getting a driver’s licence (but I also think a driver’s licence should be harder to get than it is now. The idea that you can go and sit a written test and then legally pilot a two ton steel box in areas constantly surrounded by very squishy people is kind of absurd to me).
pepper spray
Not even that?
Fuck that law.
Pepper spray is for non-lethal self-defence and should be legal.
Anyone fearful enough can come up with an excuse to own a gun.
My line is for ending Nazis and fascists, beyond that the protection of life only.
I thought In New Zealand you are allowed to walk into an airport with a spear for ceremonial welcomes.
Disclaimer, I dont live in New Zealand, or know anything about it’s laws, but a ceremonial welcome hardly seems the same as intent to use it as a weapon.
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.
US
My side should have guns, the other side shouldn’t. I don’t think it’s possible to generalize a principle beyond that, because policy should be adapted to specific conditions.
Currently, the right has tons of guns and the left doesn’t. Try to confiscate the right’s guns and you’ll probably have a civil war on your hands. So either add restrictions for new purchases, which locks in the current situation of only the right being armed, or don’t, and leave open the possibility of the left getting armed. So, better to have easy access to guns.
I think that the left should absofuckinglylutely be getting strapped.
The good news is that leftists have been strapped for years. The bad news is that, 1) they’re mostly using Mosin-Nagants and Makarovs because they’re red fudds, and 2) most people that are politically left of center are not leftists. (I’m a leftist; I do have a Mosin-Nagant, but it was a gift, and I hate shooting it. I prefer my AR-15 and AR-10.)
Before the current political climate I would have said it should be a lot harder to get a weapon (except maybe a long gun), and we need to reduce the quantity at least three orders of magnitude (thousandth).
But the current political climate really makes it a stark choice. My visceral reaction is that with the gestapo kidnapping people off the street and sending them to remote gulags, the suspension of due process and constitutional rights, political leadership holding themselves above the law …. We really need guns. All of them. For everyone, to defend against tyrants as the gpframers f the constitution intended
Then I came to my senses. My more considered reaction is the anger, divisiveness, bigotry, and general craziness accepted out in the open, is just going to lead to untold deaths, feuds, more spite and anger, more lawlessness. We need to send Sherman through the south, confiscating all firearms
Then I came to my senses.
Except you didn’t. You rationalized, and thought that someone else would save you, instead of you and the people you care about saving yourself. The floodwaters are rising, and you’re on the roof; you either have to get your own ass to safety, or drown, because FEMA’s been defunded, and no one is coming.
I’m trying to get as many of my lefty friends to buy guns as I can. I’ve offered to help them buy a gun that’s good for them and to teach them how to safely handle, store, use, and just generally be around a firearm.
Replied to wrong post, nothing to see here!
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.
I am from planet earth and I’ve observed human behavior long enough to know i would never disarm. You sick fucks are to never be trusted.
US / PNW
People who have not committed violent crimes should have the right to own and purchase any firearm. From my point of view, the NFA is a violation of individuals’ rights and should be abolished. The concept of a concealed carry permit, permit to purchase, “gun free zone”, or firearm licensing / registration are a violation of peoples’ rights. Firearm function and safety should be taught in schools again, including safe storage. Failure to follow firearm safety or safe storage resulting in bodily harm ought to be a criminal offense with heavy consequences, especially in cases that result in death.
Policing in the US is in dire need of reform. “Qualified Immunity” needs to end. Officers ought to be held to higher standards than the rest of the population, which includes using their judgment for appropriate levels of force and facing consequences for excessive force. Murderers do not get paid administrative leave or a new job in the next state, they get a trial by jury. Use of deadly force in self defense against an officer of the law ought to be justifiable after being tried in court. Traffic enforcement, response to mental health crises, response to domestic disputes, and response to reports of threats/violence require separate skillsets and should be handled by separate teams with their own training and qualifications.
The issue I see with the logic that “Everyone should have the right to carry a gun everywhere, until their negligence causes harm” is the massive consequence of someone messing up with a gun.
Guns are so extremely lethal that when accidents happen (they will eventually happen), it is likely to result in death or disability. It seems pretty clear to me that society overall is safer for everyone the fewer guns there are around. It doesn’t really matter if the person that shot me due to negligence loses their license, I’ve already been shot, and they shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place.
There are no “accidents” with firearms, there can only negligence. There are four incredibly simple rules to follow, and you have to violate more than one at a time to cause harm to another person.
In cultures where firearms are prevalent, these rules are drilled in from a young age and become second nature.
Most of the US has had “everyone should have the right to carry a gun everywhere” for quite some time. From a statistical point of view, the key areas for harm have come from:
- Suicide
- Intentional acts of violence / murder
- Unintentional shootings, often by children who had access to an unsecured firearm
There are no “accidents” with firearms, there can only be negligence.
Look, I’ve been in the army, I know firearm safety, and I strongly disagree. People can slip and fall, or inexplicably fumble and drop stuff. People with no history of it can suddenly have seizures or heart failure that causes them to seize up or collapse. None of these are common, but all can occur. If you happen to be carrying a loaded firearm when it happens, that firearm can go off. Even if you have the safety in place. Shit can malfunction.
Regardless, if I get shot, the question of whether it was intentional, an accident, or due to negligence is really a secondary matter. The primary issue is that I just got shot, and that can have irreversible consequences.
My point is that if I happen to get shot, I really don’t care how statistically unlikely it was to happen in the way it did. The most effective way to prevent firearm injuries/deaths is to keep firearms away from people that don’t strictly need them.
If you happen to be carrying a loaded firearm when it happens, that firearm can go off.
Only if the booger hook is on the bang switch and the external safety (if present) is disengaged, at which point the muzzle was supposed to have been pointed at an intended target.
For the statistically improbable situation you describe to unfold, quite a few stars would have to align during a live fire exercise, you’re likely to be a participant or spectator of that exercise and aware of the risks. This is not something that would happen in most peoples’ day to day lives “walking down the street” unless someone is already doing something super illegal with a firearm (brandishing).
keep firearms away from people who don’t strictly need them.
Please define ‘strictly need’ for me, because the meaning is a variable depending on who you ask.
In my eyes, you don’t ‘strictly need’ a seatbelt - until you’re in a high speed collision. So you wear one anyways.
You don’t ‘strictly need’ a fire extinguisher - until you’re faced with a large fire. So you keep one around anyways.
You don’t ‘strictly need’ a firearm - until you are being met with deadly force from a person or animal, need to hunt, or need to control a pest for food security.
US
People in cities should not use guns for self protection, but should also not rely on the police. Instead, less lethal options should be used for self defense like pepper spray, lasers, or maybe rubber bullets. In the vast majority of cases, densely populated areas will have other people close enough that resisting will discourage continued violence if a commotion is started, just because of possible witnesses.
In rural areas people choosing to use guns they have for hunting for the occasional threat is fine because distances are much further and there is nobody nearby to come and scare off someone by being a witness.
The settings are different and have different needs.
As far abolishing the police, the idea is that the current antagonistic police forces are so broken and do so many things that they need to be replaced with something else. Traffic enforcement shouldn’t be the same force that deescalates violent situations which shouldn’t be the same force that responds to people in distress. Having the same people respond to all situations where there is a tiny possibility of violence after being taught to treat everyone as a threat is why we get police rolling up and shooting people in mental crisis, breaking into people’s homes and shooting dogs over some weed, and shooting drivers who are trying to comply with their confusingly shouted ‘instructions’.
In some European countries, most police are unarmed. It seems to work okay. Here in Canada, they all carry guns, but it’s serious paperwork if they ever have to unholster it.
Those “some European countries” would be UK and Ireland for historical reasons. It is not really a widespread thing anywhere else.
Hmm, what are the historical reasons?
I wasn’t actually sure what the breakdown is across the continent, so I left it vague. I’m guessing French police are always armed.
In the UK, one of the first modern (ie publicly salaried) police forces was the Metropolitan police, founded in 1829 on the principle of “policing by consent” rather than by force. In other words, our police uphold the law because we want them to not because they have shooters.
Additionally, politically, there was a lot of disquiet about the formation of a paramilitary arm of the government when the army had been used to repress and supress in living memory. So the police were created to be clearly distinct from an armed military.
Thanks! (Although, the policing by consent thing sounds like propaganda. Everyone and their dog claims the will of the people)
Dutch police aren’t always I think (but often yes), and I seem to remember that Icelandic police almost never does. I don’t know for most countries but afaik it’s not as uncommon as that for them not to wear guns
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.
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
Absolutely, why should only some people be afforded a right.
Criminals will be criminals, take guns away and they start running cars through crowds.
Try living somewhere that’s not America for a minute.
I mean we’re seeing this in Europe with mass shootins and such, though to a much lesser extent than America.
No, we’re not. There is literally nothing in Europe that happens in a year that compares with the gun violence and homicide rate happens in America in a weekend.
Which is why I said “to a much lesser extent.” Mass shootings are on the rise in multiple European countries, as are homicides and hate crimes. I mean hell, France is looking to restrict knives over this stuff. Having a non-broken society contributes a lot more than what murder weapons are available, and now that European societies are generally fraying at the seams murder rates are unsurprisingly rising.
Yeah, and you keep phrasing that like it’s comparable, it’s not.
Put statistics behind your words if you think they’re rising to a place of being comparable with the US.
Okay I don’t like talking like this, but what part of “to a much lesser extent” do you not understand?
I get it, it just makes it sound like widespread ownership of guns aren’t directly contributing to the problem in a major way.
deleted by creator
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.
