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?
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]A gun is not the only means of self defense; in fact, They’re terrible at it. Ironically, a hammer is probably a better tool for self defense.
Edit go ahead and downvote me, facts don’t care about your feelings.
-
(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)
:::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
-
In most countries, owning a gun isn't a right, its a privilege.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I am aware of that, but this comment chain started with the context of it being a right.
-
Doesn't mean I have to agree with the practice.
So don't agree then.
-
Tell that to the people of Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan...those bigger guns cannot patrol a street corner. Occupation requires soldiers.
You know how you change the people who support you into rebels? Bomb the house right next to theirs and kill a few of them as well as the rebels.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan
Lmao, you think they were fighting back with 9mm pistols that they carried to Walmart to feel tough?
Bruh those armies fought back with conventional military guns and mixtures of conventional military explosives and IEDs.
-
A gun is not the only means of self defense; in fact, They’re terrible at it. Ironically, a hammer is probably a better tool for self defense.
Edit go ahead and downvote me, facts don’t care about your feelings.
274 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm
Ok, and how many defensive uses of a firearm occurred that year where the defender did not kill the attacker? Cases where the attacker was merely injured, or the defender missed, or the attacker ran off at the sight of the firearm? Why are those entirely omitted, does it only count as self defense if the attacker dies, not if one successfully stops the attack without a justifiable homicide?
And while we're at it, how many justifiable homicides occurred that year with your defensive weapon of choice, The Hammer? If the metric used to determine a weapon's viability for defense is simply justifiable homicides/yr, blind bet: it's less than 274.
Btw
only 1.1 percent of victims of attempted or completed violent crimes used a firearm,
While around 45% of people own a gun, only 21% of people carry a gun ever, and even less carry everywhere always, and this figure doesn't take into account whether or not the victims had a gun on them with which to defend themselves. This stat is entirely meaningless without controling for that.
and only 0.3 percent of victims of attempted or completed property crimes used a firearm.
Well that's illegal unless you're in Texas at night, so, unless that's all they're counting this makes me further question the voracity of the study. You're telling me that 0.3 percent of people in the study successfully justifiably killed someone for something that is illegal to kill people for? That's not how this works lol.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
available, but hard to get
Then only the rich can have guns.
No sure if that's what you had in mind?
Maybe this is what they had in mind.
-
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.
-
US
Our gun laws are a patchwork of really dumb state and federal laws and regulations that often don't make much sense and there is little consistency. I think we pretty much need to go back to square one with basic shit like defining what constitutes a "firearm" and go from there.
I have a lot of thoughts on this and I'm not going to write them all out here right now, because it would get really lengthy and I just don't feel like it right now (if there's interest in hearing what this random internet stranger has to say I may write it up later)
But in general I think that people should be able to own guns, but I also think that there should be a lot of hoops to jump through to get them, background checks, proficiency tests, education , training, insurance, psychological evaluations, storage requirements, etc.
That's alot of words to say "I believe poor people shouldn't have the right to own firearms."
-
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.
-
(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)
:::Brazil recently had an "experience" in getting more lax with gun restrictions. While people were mostly in favor of that before it came into effect, ~4 years later more people were against letting any idiot have a gun.
For every "CAC^[Caçador, Atirador, Colecionador (hunters, sport shooters, collectors) the term used in Brazil to denote civilians that can legally buy guns] kills a robber" there are dozens of "CAC kills family/wife/police/random person". Not only that, with how lax the law got, said CACs also became a bridge to sell or loan guns to criminals, which would usually have to buy them off corrupt police or army. Overall, people feel less safe, because now any argument with a rando can end up with you being shot, even if you're not even involved and just happened to be nearby
One thing to keep in mind is that most police forces exist to protect wealth. If you have wealth, you'll be protected. If you don't, you're a target. Does the police need guns? Not always. Not every criminal is armed and not every armed criminal can only be taken on by "a good guy with a gun"
You cant both abolish the police and then also disarm the citizens, gotta pick one.
You can, but you also need to reorganize a lot of how society works, especially in regards to wealth distribution.
-
(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 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.
-
Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan
Lmao, you think they were fighting back with 9mm pistols that they carried to Walmart to feel tough?
Bruh those armies fought back with conventional military guns and mixtures of conventional military explosives and IEDs.
the largest causes of death in the U.S. armed forces were small arms fire (31.8%),
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Afghanistan is the same thing....small arms and IEDs. If you don't know what an IED is and suggest that civilians cannot build them, then you're arguing in bad faith.
-
Maybe this is what they had in mind.
Don’t put that racist shit on me.
-
the largest causes of death in the U.S. armed forces were small arms fire (31.8%),
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Afghanistan is the same thing....small arms and IEDs. If you don't know what an IED is and suggest that civilians cannot build them, then you're arguing in bad faith.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Small arms doesn't mean pistols, it means weaponry that doesn't have to be mounted to something else.
It includes automatic and semi-automatic military rifles (like M16s and AKs) and light machine guns (like SAWs and RPDs).
Again, those wars were fought primarily with military weaponry, not handguns.
-
So banned people who are above average in size and strength because they could hurt you much more seriously?
A gun does considerably more damage more easily than simply being strong.
You don't even need to get close. You don't even need to keep meaning to hurt or kill, a single moment's pull of the trigger can do it.
-
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.
-
No reason to carry knives in public
Knives are so useful, I think carrying a multitool with multiple decently sized blades is very reasonable.
Absolutely:]
-
OP also didn't want this to be focused around USA gun rights.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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!
