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?
-
(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
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.
-
That's alot of words to say "I believe poor people shouldn't have the right to own firearms."
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
(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 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'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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Replied to wrong post, nothing to see here!
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
-
(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)
:::Tell me you're from the US without telling me you're from the US.
Let's have a hypothetical scenario, imagine there was a machine that could be used to murder people easily, even if that wasn't their main purpose anyone could use it in a fit of rage to kill someone, in fact anyone could kill someone by accident with this machine. You would want this machine to be regulated, have people evaluated psychologically, and have them take classes and perform an exam to ensure they won't kill anyone by accident.
Did you think guns? I meant cars. And asking if no one or only cops should have guns is like asking if no one or only bus drivers should be able to drive. There's a midterm that most of the world has already reached, where we require people to go through some process to prove they can operate the death machine safely.
-
(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)
:::With frequent mass school shootings I would think the only defensible position would be to be for as much gun restrictions as possible, otherwise you'd have to defend a necessary condition to allowing mass shootings to continue.
Absent that condition I think people should be allowed to do what they want without fucking up everybody else.
-
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)
-
(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 all guns oughta be allowed, but certain calibres should require registration with an official state militia. Granted, I also think we oughta have those too besides just the state and national guards; but I like redundancy.
-
(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)
:::Long guns and hunting weapons sure. I'd ban everything else with heavy prison terms for illegal firearms.
-
(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)
:::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).
-
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).
I thought In New Zealand you are allowed to walk into an airport with a spear for ceremonial welcomes.
-
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).
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.
