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?
-
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.
-
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.
You could make the same argument about a car would you be banning those as well?
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
(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!
