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?
-
If you can get a gun to protect yourself, criminals are easily going to have guns too.
Simpler all around if nobody has guns.
Or, at the very least nobody should have a handgun. A full length rifle or shotgun is a lot harder to conceal when you are using it for nefarious purposes.
Citizens not having guns is not going to stop criminals from having guns
-
Personally I wholly believe that gun owners should be held as accomplice to any crimes committed with their stolen firearms if it was acquired through negligence.
Edit to say I'm a gun owner.
So a friend borrows your car, and runs someone over, do you feel the same way?
Or if someone steals a hammer out of your toolbox and beats someone to death?
I understand, and I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but what you're saying would be hard to prove and easy to use as a weapon against certain people.
-
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.
Should it be state funded? Or should only people who can afford it be allowed to exercise their rights?
-
You can buy a car at any age, with no insurance or license, drive it without on private land, and it can cross into any state in the nation.
You also cannot buy military hardware in 10 mins at your local store. All rifles in the USA that you purchase without a form 1 and a boat load of cash are bolt action or semi-auto. You cannot go to the store and buy a fully automatic or burst action rifle or handgun. I don't know where you got your info from but it's way way wrong.
Size of magazines also are a completely pointless exercise. Swapping a mag is a 1/2 second process, and with practice can get it down to even quicker.
I agree, take the word gun out of an argument and replace it with car or tool, something common.
If the argument no longer makes sense, neither does the argument.
-
(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)
:::Absolutely, why should only some people be afforded a right.
Criminals will be criminals, take guns away and they start running cars through crowds.
-
What if you have a safe and the thief is a locksmith and stole your gun?
I mean I think by this logic, people who don't lock their car doors and the car gets stolen/carjacked, the car owner would face the consequences of whatever the thieves used it for?
(Genuinely asking)
It's right there in the comment. You took the effort to store your guns in the manner required by the law and they got stolen by someone with markedly more skill than average. You're not to blame. Now if you leave your gun in your toolbox in the back of your truck or casually on your night stand, there's a problem and it isn't the skill level of burglars.
-
Should it be state funded? Or should only people who can afford it be allowed to exercise their rights?
User pay. Just like buying the gun, driving a car, a boating license, or a hunting license.
The last thing I want in an active shooter situation is someone with more money than skill waving a gun around making the situation worse.
-
So a friend borrows your car, and runs someone over, do you feel the same way?
Or if someone steals a hammer out of your toolbox and beats someone to death?
I understand, and I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but what you're saying would be hard to prove and easy to use as a weapon against certain people.
Short answer is yes. If I made the decision to loan my car to someone and they intentionally committed a crime with it, I think I should be investigated for my involvement. If it turns out I had no reason to suspect this was going on, cool. If it turns out this was a problem waiting to happen, then I'm responsible for my role in it.
Now the hammer is a bit of a mess, because it is not difficult to acquire a hammer so you would have a hard time saying the crime couldn't have been committed if not for my specific hammer.
-
You can buy a car at any age, with no insurance or license, drive it without on private land, and it can cross into any state in the nation.
You also cannot buy military hardware in 10 mins at your local store. All rifles in the USA that you purchase without a form 1 and a boat load of cash are bolt action or semi-auto. You cannot go to the store and buy a fully automatic or burst action rifle or handgun. I don't know where you got your info from but it's way way wrong.
Size of magazines also are a completely pointless exercise. Swapping a mag is a 1/2 second process, and with practice can get it down to even quicker.
My list of suggestions for regulations does not mean that some of them aren't already in effect.
As for the rest: ok.
-
(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)
:::Every man for themselves, free-for-all, no resurrections.
-
I agree, take the word gun out of an argument and replace it with car or tool, something common.
If the argument no longer makes sense, neither does the argument.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The difference is that guns have only one purpose.
People can get hurt during an accident while using a tool, but for a gun, something gets hurt every time it's used as intended.
I don't think we should be using power tool regulations for guns.
-
User pay. Just like buying the gun, driving a car, a boating license, or a hunting license.
The last thing I want in an active shooter situation is someone with more money than skill waving a gun around making the situation worse.
If one has to pay for it then it isn't a right.
Driving a car is a privilege.
-
I'm strictly anti-gun, as I believe are most Europeans. Civilians shouldn't be allowed to keep ranged weapons, period.
What about hunting?
-
Citizens not having guns is not going to stop criminals from having guns
A lot of guns are stolen. Also if there isn't a big a market, manufacturers won't make as many. Supply drops so does criminal possession.
Not that I'm advocating either way, just a counter to your point.
-
(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]US
People in cities should not use guns for self protection, but should also not rely on the police. Instead, less lethal options should be used for self defense like pepper spray, lasers, or maybe rubber bullets. In the vast majority of cases, densely populated areas will have other people close enough that resisting will discourage continued violence if a commotion is started, just because of possible witnesses.
In rural areas people choosing to use guns they have for hunting for the occasional threat is fine because distances are much further and there is nobody nearby to come and scare off someone by being a witness.
The settings are different and have different needs.
As far abolishing the police, the idea is that the current antagonistic police forces are so broken and do so many things that they need to be replaced with something else. Traffic enforcement shouldn't be the same force that deescalates violent situations which shouldn't be the same force that responds to people in distress. Having the same people respond to all situations where there is a tiny possibility of violence after being taught to treat everyone as a threat is why we get police rolling up and shooting people in mental crisis, breaking into people's homes and shooting dogs over some weed, and shooting drivers who are trying to comply with their confusingly shouted 'instructions'.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
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?
-
The difference is that guns have only one purpose.
People can get hurt during an accident while using a tool, but for a gun, something gets hurt every time it's used as intended.
I don't think we should be using power tool regulations for guns.
Exactly. A gun is not a car; it has no other purpose other than to kill. The “tool” argument is disingenuous at best.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Yes it will. The idea thaat criminals will mass produce homemade firearms is nonsense. Even the cartels don't do this at any scale.
I'm Toronto it's like 13% of guns that are domestic, the other 87% are smuggled in from the unregulated shithole that is America, 0% are homemade.
-
Absolutely, why should only some people be afforded a right.
Criminals will be criminals, take guns away and they start running cars through crowds.
Try living somewhere that's not America for a minute.
-
I'm not against gun ownership, but it needs to be regulated.
Compare it to your car. You need to prove your ability with a test, carry your license with you, register your vehicle, and in some places, it must pass an annual safety inspection. We do all this just to get to work and back, but I can stop at one of many stores within 10 miles of my house and buy armfuls of military hardware designed to do nothing but kill.
Handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are all you need. Small magazines, no burst or fully automatics. Everything gets registered.
Some extra context: There are a LOT of areas in the US that are rural enough that wildlife is a serious threat, and hunting is a sustainable option for meat. It makes no sense to tell those people they can't have one.
You do not need handguns. Handguns are the biggest problem.
