Do you believe that the people should be able to have guns to protect themselves, or should the police have the sole authority to own and posess guns to protect the people?
-
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.
-
(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]
::: spoiler ---
(Also its funny how the far-right of the US is both pro-gun and pro-police, I'm confused by that as well)
:::wrote last edited by [email protected]Canada.
I think that the bar to owning any projectile weapon should be very high, and have tiers that go progressively higher with the type of weapon requested. Hunting rifles? Comparatively easy. Hip-wielded auto cannon capable of sending 300+ rounds a minute down range? Yeah, that’s a decade-plus of effort to get licensed and approved.
Proactive qualifiers would include psychological testing, social media monitoring, lack of criminal convictions, wait times for both weapons and ammo, tracking of ammo consumption, extensive training and marksmanship minimums, and red flag laws. Any violent ideation such as fascism, accelerationism, religious extremism, or white supremacy would be instant disqualifiers.
On the flip side, once someone passes the thresholds, they should be able to own any damn weapon they want. Even clear up to naval ordinance and other heavy weaponry. Want to romp around your 500ha property with a fully functional Abrams tank? Go right ahead - just ensure that a fired shell never goes beyond your property’s border or there will be legal hell to pay.
Now active carry is yet another issue. At which point, unless the person is in a high-risk job or has been under the receiving end of actual threats to their life, any carry should be highly questionable. If an average person wants to cosplay with live weaponry while out in public, questions need to be raised about their mental stability. A mentally stable person is not going to be wandering about with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder - there is absolutely no need for that under virtually 100% of all cases.
-
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.
-
Abolishing the police is an overly broad demand that can't really be taken that seriously as an actual, society wide, legislative course of action.
That being said, it might still be worth advocating for as a matter of negotiation, and it's worth abolishing many specific existing police forces and replacing them whole cloth with new professional forces.
And no, gun ownership should not be allowed. It's fucking asinine to think that the world will be a better place when you allow anyone to point and click murder someone on a whim.
Guess what happens when you let good people buy guns? Bad people buy them more frequently, and in greater quantities.
Guess what happens when you challenge your local government's use of force with you own personal cache of weapons? Oh look, every police force in the country just bought APCs and militarized to make that infeasible.
You'll still always need hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. and you will likely need to have special circumstances where someone or their security guard can get a firearm for exigent circumstances, but by and large the idea of allowing widespread firearm ownership for personal defense reasons is nonsense. All of the arguments fall apart when you examine their effects at a systemic level.
Can't agree more.
-
(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]
::: spoiler ---
(Also its funny how the far-right of the US is both pro-gun and pro-police, I'm confused by that as well)
:::US
Q1: people don't trust the police
Q2: people don't know what they want, but they do know they don't trust the police.
Q3: This is a false premise. You can do both, but I am gathering you believe that the resulting "lawlessness" would be bad.
Q4: the best take is to reform police to the point that most do not carry firearms and are basically trained social workers. Firearms should be greatly regulated by a combination of insurance, technology, and psychological testing.
Q5: The concept that good guns cancel out bad guns is fantasy.
Q6: Yes, this can be done independently of whatever US decides to do with gun control
-
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).
wrote last edited by [email protected]pepper spray
Not even that?
Fuck that law.
Pepper spray is for non-lethal self-defence and should be legal.
-
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).
-
(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]
::: spoiler ---
(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 the people should be allowed to have guns within reason. What I mean by ‘within reason’ is that no civilian should be able to own something ridiculous like an RPG. I don’t believe that to be an unreasonable demand. Though I must say, it would be cool to use one.
-
It's not, and that would be addressed in the stuff I didn't feel like writing last night (and still don't)
And I don't feel like writing it because there's a lot to it, to just barely scratch the surface, my ideal gun control reform would be part of major overhauls to basically all aspects of government and we'd have things like universal healthcare (which would cover the psych eval,) government funded childcare (so that you can do something with your kids while you jump through the hoops,) free and expanded public transportation (so that you can get to the courthouse or wherever you need to,) expanded workers rights (so that you would have PTO to use to go do all of that,) expanded hours for government offices (so that people hopefully don't even need to use that PTO, I know it my county to get a concealed carry permit you have to be able to get to those courthouse during certain hours on certain days, the courthouse isn't conveniently located and the hours suck, most people probably have to take a day off of work and get up early to do it, that's bullshit) and we'd be getting rid of most fees for government services or at least making them scale to income.
And of course, were funding this by massive taxes on the wealthy.
Basically we're putting a hell of a lot of hoops in the way, but we're paving the way to those hoops so that anyone who wants to has a fair shot at being allowed to attempt to jump through them.
Doubt anyone's going to see it at this point but figured I'd write out some of my other thoughts now
When I talk about going back to square one and defining what a firearm even is, I mean that quite literally. Muzzleloaders aren't considered firearms, and no they're not likely to be used in a mass shooting, but they'll still kill someone just as dead as a modern firearm. There's stupid loopholes about antique guns that may function in much the same way as a modern firearm.
They're fucking guns.
And with an eye to the future, it may be worth building in a little future with other weapons technologies that may come into play that should be regulated similarly. There are high powered air rifles today that are comparable in stopping power to some firearms, shouldn't they be regulated in a similar manner? Or what if advances in battery technology and such make coil/rail guns viable as man-portable or even concealable weapons?
We also classify things in really stupid ways. Take a look at some of the weird shit around short barrel shotguns/rifles and "any other weapons" where you can have 2 basically identical weapons that are classified differently just due to a quirk of how they were manufactured. An AR-15 with a short barrel is a no-no unless you're willing to jump through some extra hoops, but you can build an AR-15 "pistol" and slap a -not-a-stock "wrist brace" on it.
And machine guns are a no-no, but bump stocks, binary triggers, forced-reset triggers, etc. that get you basically the same effect are a-ok. Not to mention that absurdity we had for a few years where shoelaces of a certain length were technically classified as a machine gun.
I basically want to create 4 categories
Hunting arms- single shot or manually operated rifles and shotguns with barrel length 16" and greater, rimfire rifles, muzzleloaders, and certain larger handguns. Low rate of fire, not easily concealable.
Concealed carry weapons- handguns.
Other firearms- short barrels rifles/shotguns, semi-auto shotguns and centerfire rifles
Machine guns, destructive devices, etc. we're moving bump stocks, binary triggers, forced reset triggers, etc. into this category.
For the first 3 categories, the main difference is going to be in the types of training required, as well as the required insurance rates. I think it's also fair to be allowed to purchase hunting arms at 18, and bump the other categories up to 21. *
For the 4th category, we're keeping things largely the same as the current NFA regulations, but we're fixing some of the wonky definitions, and increasing the cost of the tax stamp, because the $200 it was set at in the '30s really hasn't kept up with inflation.
We're also going to make most gun accessories subject to the same sorts of background checks and such. And we're moving silencers into this category.
We're unifying gun laws across the country. No more wonky patchwork of different states having their own laws. If it's legal, it's legal across the whole country, if it's illegal, it's illegal everywhere.
I hate the term, but we're closing the "gun show loophole" (which really has nothing to do with gun shows) all transfers must go through the process. We're also expanding the locations you can do them at, not just FFL dealers anymore, police stations, and some details would need to be figured out for security reasons, but maybe some places like DMVs, post offices, courthouses, etc. and we're getting rid of any fees. No excuses to not do things properly.
We're beefing up the background checks, getting all states on the same page with what does and does not disqualify someone from owning a gun, red flag laws, probably disqualifying people with DUIs (if I don't trust you with a car I certainly don't trust you with a gun)
And we're delisting marijuana so that if you like to smoke up once in a while you're able to keep your guns.
*Along with the changes in ages, we're also making some changes to police and military. If you can't legally purchase and carry a handgun or rifle as a civilian, you don't get to carry them in your line of work either. You're exempt from the draft until 21, you can enlist at 18 but only serve in non-combat roles until 21, and if you do enlist before age 21, you will receive education and training equivalent to that many years of college or vocational training. Police academy will become a 4 year program equivalent to a bachelors degree. Also off-duty officers do not get any special exemptions in their eligibility to carry firearms, and their duty weapon stays locked up at the station when off the clock. There's a whole lot more I have to say about police reform too, but that's an entirely different rant.
Firearms must be stored in a properly-rated safe that is either firmly attached to the structure of your home - studs, floor joist, concrete, brick, or other masonry walls, etc. or that is heavy enough that it can't be easily moved by 2 guys with a hand truck. No leaving them in your car, unsecured in your garage,in the night stand, etc. when you're not able to directly oversee them. We're not going to be doing in-home inspections on this, but if it's somehow found that you're storing them improperly, like if someone is able to steal them because they weren't properly secured, then you lose your right to own guns.
If you lose your firearm (I work in 911 dispatch, the amount of calls I've had for guns found in bathrooms, movie theaters, etc. that someone left behind is pretty worrying) or have a negligent discharge (that isn't the result of a manufacturing defect,) you lose your right to own guns.
We're making some major changes to stand your ground laws and castle doctrine, I don't have a problem with castle doctrine as a general concept, but a lot of states' implementations leave a lot to be desired. When your outside of your home, I think the focus should be more on duty-to-retreat (again, I work in 911 dispatch, I don't think a night goes by that I don't have a dozen calls that could have been solved without police intervention if my caller just fucking walked away but instead escalated into some sort of fight)
No, we are not arming teachers. Full stop.
I'm probably missing some things here, and there's a lot of details I'm glossing over a bit because this comment is already too long, but hopefully this kind of paints a general picture of where my head is at.
-
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
Maybe a good starting point could be a good training for the police in handling situations without using the gun.
-
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.
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.
-
(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]
::: spoiler ---
(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 a functional society, guns should not be allowed to be used for personal defense by the public, the police should have a monopoly on using guns for protection.
But, guns should be allowed for hunting, sports and a general hobby.
If a member of the public used a gun for self defense, an investigation would determine if that was justified or not.
-
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.
-
(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]
::: spoiler ---
(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. -
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) -
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.
