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?
-
People shouldn't have guns. Why would you need a gun? To protect yourself? Well, if you have a gun, the one you are protecting yourself from has a gun too. See, not really protection at all, it just enables you both to hurt each other much more seriously.
Just look at all the school shootings - most of those would never had happened had guns been harder to get.
Edit: Look at murder/kill statistics for countries that allow its citizens to have guns. I don't think guns = safety, but rather guns = more deaths and leas safety.
So banned people who are above average in size and strength because they could hurt you much more seriously?
-
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.
-
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.wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
(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)
:::Neither this nor that. Your options are too simplistic.
Of course, police needs guns.
Some civilians need guns, too. But not many. They should be able to get them, but they have to prove their need. It needs rules set up in advance to define what kind of needs qualify for getting guns. And then it needs laws against gun abuse.
In addition, soldiers need guns. They even need weapons that are much stronger. So there must be boundaries between several kinds of weapons, and normal people cannot get all kinds. And there must be boundaries between what police can do and what soldiers can do. For example, soldiers must never go against civilians, and nobody has the right to order them so, and they can never get punished for denying such an order.
-
Civilians shouldn't be allowed to keep ranged weapons, period.
So my bow should be illegal? What about a slingshot?
Bows/crossbows should be restricted to use in special clubs, just like guns or rifles, where they are stored on premise.
Restricting slingshots would be hard to enforce, but I'd say carrying them in public should be just as illegal as carrying guns.
Tbh I've never seen a use case that requires ownership of a slingshot, other than maybe feeding fishes in preparation of a long cast.
-
Guns should be available, but hard to get, and hard to keep.
available, but hard to get
Then only the rich can have guns.
No sure if that's what you had in mind?
-
What about hunting?
Should be reserved to professional hunters/game keepers, who would be entitled to rifle ownership as part of their job description, just like police forces or the military.
Privateers should not kill animals for sport.
-
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.
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
-
-
Should be reserved to professional hunters/game keepers, who would be entitled to rifle ownership as part of their job description, just like police forces or the military.
Privateers should not kill animals for sport.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Most hunters in the US are shooting game to eat, ehoch is necessary since we killed off most of the predators that would otherwise keep the deer populations in check. Limiting it to only professionals would result in a lot of wasted kills.
We have hunting licenses for a reason.
-
Most hunters in the US are shooting game to eat, ehoch is necessary since we killed off most of the predators that would otherwise keep the deer populations in check. Limiting it to only professionals would result in a lot of wasted kills.
We have hunting licenses for a reason.
Doesn't mean I have to agree with the practice.
-
Neither this nor that. Your options are too simplistic.
Of course, police needs guns.
Some civilians need guns, too. But not many. They should be able to get them, but they have to prove their need. It needs rules set up in advance to define what kind of needs qualify for getting guns. And then it needs laws against gun abuse.
In addition, soldiers need guns. They even need weapons that are much stronger. So there must be boundaries between several kinds of weapons, and normal people cannot get all kinds. And there must be boundaries between what police can do and what soldiers can do. For example, soldiers must never go against civilians, and nobody has the right to order them so, and they can never get punished for denying such an order.
but they have to prove their need
No. They should have to prove their competency. Need is too easy to dispute. We dont get to dictate why someone needs a gun any more than why they need a car. If they want one, have the means, and demonstrate compliance with safety guidelines, then they shouldn't be denied. Canada handles this fairly well.
School shootings demonstrate why some people should absolutely be denied access to guns.
The current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.
-
but they have to prove their need
No. They should have to prove their competency. Need is too easy to dispute. We dont get to dictate why someone needs a gun any more than why they need a car. If they want one, have the means, and demonstrate compliance with safety guidelines, then they shouldn't be denied. Canada handles this fairly well.
School shootings demonstrate why some people should absolutely be denied access to guns.
The current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.
Need is too easy to dispute.
Because it needs to be disputed. You want a gun, you make a case for it.
-
(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)
:::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.
-
but they have to prove their need
No. They should have to prove their competency. Need is too easy to dispute. We dont get to dictate why someone needs a gun any more than why they need a car. If they want one, have the means, and demonstrate compliance with safety guidelines, then they shouldn't be denied. Canada handles this fairly well.
School shootings demonstrate why some people should absolutely be denied access to guns.
The current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.
prove their competency.
That's a good thing, but comes after the need.
current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.
If it's about bringing down a bad government, it can be done with pitchforks as well.
-
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.
-
(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)
:::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.
-
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.
-
I'm strictly anti-gun, as I believe are most Europeans. Civilians shouldn't be allowed to keep ranged weapons, period.
But it is legal to do that in all European countries though. You just need to qualify for a license. And that process seems to mostly do the job, especially compared to the US.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
(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)
:::Hell no, as few people as possible should have guns. Regular police don't even need them.
