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?
-
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!
-
Don’t put that racist shit on me.
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.
-
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.
Indirectly. They use the fact that people could be armed to justify their behavior, especially the overuse of 'he's got a gun' when the person doesn't. But many people interact with other people in dangerous situations while attempting to deescalate which the police tend to use the possibility as justification for escalating violence.
Mental health professional: talk down the person who is having a crisis
Police: shoot while claiming they are afraid for their life from an unarmed 12 year old
-
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.
-
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.
Pistols are military weaponry. Most pistols are designed for sale to militaries as their primary audience.
Regular pump shotguns were used in WWII for clearing trenches. The really common AR-15 in the US is a very close equivalent of the M16. Most hunting rifles are comparable to most sniper rifles.
Which small arms are used mainly comes down to what is available to carry, what ammunition is available, and how well they hold up in local conditions. The AK range is extremely popular because it holds up extremely well in a wide variety of conditions with minimal maintenance and it does especially well in desert/sandy conditions compared to almost every other rifle. It is also mass produced in a ton of places and as a result ammunition is plentiful.
They mainly use weapons produced for militaries because that is what is available and reliable enough for their use. They would have used any small arms they could get their hands on that performed as well.
-
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.
Maybe they shouldn't become cops then.
-
Absolutely:]
You just said
No reason to carry knives in public
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/small arm
a handheld firearm (such as a handgun or shoulder arm)
Civilian rifles are semi-auto...
Around 20million AR pattern rifles are in civ hands in the usa.
Edit: downvoting us doesn't make you correct. This isn't reddit. Votes don't matter here
-
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.
How do you propose keeping guns away from people prone to violence, criminals, and the insane?
-
How do you propose keeping guns away from people prone to violence, criminals, and the insane?
There is a massive gap between handing out guns in happy meals and being hard to get.
Committing violent crimes or being of unsound mind are perfectly fine reasons for restricting possession as long as there is due process and the possibility of restoring the rights under certain conditions. If someone is charged with a violent crime then they shouldn't have possession of firearms until that matter is settled.
There will always be the cases where someone has zero history of violence before they commit a crime so it wouldn't be perfect, but even in the US most states have restrictions based on obvious reasons someone shouldn't have a gun.
-
Bring back the phalanx.
-
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
-
I think the right to have a gun should also include the legal requirement to take and pass a tactical shoot course. No point in having a gun if one can't hit their target in a stressful situation. Paper target shooting isn't good enough.
I'll go further, and say the text of the 2nd Amendment implies gun owners should be members of a well-regulated militia. I think every State Guard should accept anyone who applies, and give them basic training. In exchange for being part of the reserve, and passing firearm classes, you can keep and bear arms.
If you don't want to be part of a well-regulated militia, no guns. If you can't pass firearm training, no guns.
-
(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)
:::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.
