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?
-
(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)
:::With frequent mass school shootings I would think the only defensible position would be to be for as much gun restrictions as possible, otherwise you'd have to defend a necessary condition to allowing mass shootings to continue.
Absent that condition I think people should be allowed to do what they want without fucking up everybody else.
-
In the UK, one of the first modern (ie publicly salaried) police forces was the Metropolitan police, founded in 1829 on the principle of "policing by consent" rather than by force. In other words, our police uphold the law because we want them to not because they have shooters.
Additionally, politically, there was a lot of disquiet about the formation of a paramilitary arm of the government when the army had been used to repress and supress in living memory. So the police were created to be clearly distinct from an armed military.
Thanks! (Although, the policing by consent thing sounds like propaganda. Everyone and their dog claims the will of the people)
-
(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 think all guns oughta be allowed, but certain calibres should require registration with an official state militia. Granted, I also think we oughta have those too besides just the state and national guards; but I like redundancy.
-
(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)
:::Long guns and hunting weapons sure. I'd ban everything else with heavy prison terms for illegal firearms.
-
(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)
:::New Zealand.
Our laws make carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon (in self defence or not) a crime - whether it's a gun, sword, pepper spray, cricket bat, screwdriver, or lollipop stick. This makes sure that when someone robs a corner store the owner gets jailed for having a baseball bat behind the counter. It's absurd.
The law not only doesn't equalise your chances, it actively forces you to be at a disadvantage when defending yourself, and by the time any police arrive the assailant is long gone. Most criminals don't have guns (except for the multiple armed gangs of course), but plenty of them bring bladed weapons, there have been multiple cases of machete attacks.
I'm all for gun ownership for the purpose of property defence. Including strong legal defences for home and store owners repelling assailants.
I don't think just anyone should be able to go and purchase a gun no questions asked, it should probably be tied to some kind of mandatory formal training, e.g. participation in army reserves. It should definitely be more difficult than getting a driver's licence (but I also think a driver's licence should be harder to get than it is now. The idea that you can go and sit a written test and then legally pilot a two ton steel box in areas constantly surrounded by very squishy people is kind of absurd to me).
-
New Zealand.
Our laws make carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon (in self defence or not) a crime - whether it's a gun, sword, pepper spray, cricket bat, screwdriver, or lollipop stick. This makes sure that when someone robs a corner store the owner gets jailed for having a baseball bat behind the counter. It's absurd.
The law not only doesn't equalise your chances, it actively forces you to be at a disadvantage when defending yourself, and by the time any police arrive the assailant is long gone. Most criminals don't have guns (except for the multiple armed gangs of course), but plenty of them bring bladed weapons, there have been multiple cases of machete attacks.
I'm all for gun ownership for the purpose of property defence. Including strong legal defences for home and store owners repelling assailants.
I don't think just anyone should be able to go and purchase a gun no questions asked, it should probably be tied to some kind of mandatory formal training, e.g. participation in army reserves. It should definitely be more difficult than getting a driver's licence (but I also think a driver's licence should be harder to get than it is now. The idea that you can go and sit a written test and then legally pilot a two ton steel box in areas constantly surrounded by very squishy people is kind of absurd to me).
I thought In New Zealand you are allowed to walk into an airport with a spear for ceremonial welcomes.
-
New Zealand.
Our laws make carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon (in self defence or not) a crime - whether it's a gun, sword, pepper spray, cricket bat, screwdriver, or lollipop stick. This makes sure that when someone robs a corner store the owner gets jailed for having a baseball bat behind the counter. It's absurd.
The law not only doesn't equalise your chances, it actively forces you to be at a disadvantage when defending yourself, and by the time any police arrive the assailant is long gone. Most criminals don't have guns (except for the multiple armed gangs of course), but plenty of them bring bladed weapons, there have been multiple cases of machete attacks.
I'm all for gun ownership for the purpose of property defence. Including strong legal defences for home and store owners repelling assailants.
I don't think just anyone should be able to go and purchase a gun no questions asked, it should probably be tied to some kind of mandatory formal training, e.g. participation in army reserves. It should definitely be more difficult than getting a driver's licence (but I also think a driver's licence should be harder to get than it is now. The idea that you can go and sit a written test and then legally pilot a two ton steel box in areas constantly surrounded by very squishy people is kind of absurd to me).
Anyone fearful enough can come up with an excuse to own a gun.
My line is for ending Nazis and fascists, beyond that the protection of life only.
-
Maybe they shouldn't become cops then.
Yep! I wasn't justifying them.
-
I like this because it highlights how it's not an all-or-none question. There are plenty of countries with low firearm deaths that allow some guns but restrict others.
Yes, the question itself is too simplistic for a meaningful answer without lots of conditions and qualifications. It just invites highly polarized apples vs oranges arguments.
-
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.
Before the current political climate I would have said it should be a lot harder to get a weapon (except maybe a long gun), and we need to reduce the quantity at least three orders of magnitude (thousandth).
But the current political climate really makes it a stark choice. My visceral reaction is that with the gestapo kidnapping people off the street and sending them to remote gulags, the suspension of due process and constitutional rights, political leadership holding themselves above the law …. We really need guns. All of them. For everyone, to defend against tyrants as the gpframers f the constitution intended
Then I came to my senses. My more considered reaction is the anger, divisiveness, bigotry, and general craziness accepted out in the open, is just going to lead to untold deaths, feuds, more spite and anger, more lawlessness. We need to send Sherman through the south, confiscating all firearms
-
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.
That’s certainly part of it - here in the US, police need fewer guns, harder to get, better training. They need to be demilitarized. I don’t think I’m naive about what police need to be able to handle, but all too often it seems like their first reaction is to start blasting. Most police interactions by far do not need a weapon. Most do not need the escalation.
And of course a big part of that needs to be restoring “qualified” to “qualified immunity”. The current blanket immunity makes bad situations worse
-
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.
100% agree. This morning I was thinking about a reply (didn't have time before leaving for work) along these lines. But more of reporting to any nearby active shooter situation and helping the cops in exchange for a free gun and training. I like your idea as well.
-
Hand to hand combat is very unequal. If you get lucky, you have the genes that naturally make you stronger.
Guns equalize the playing field.
Also, you can't hand-to-hand a bear. Humans aren't the only threat that exists.
It’s a very small percentage of people who would come across a bear and need a weapon. Here in eastern us, you shouldn’t have them for black bears. However I can see long guns in places with grizzlies ….. im not convinced it useful, but I can understand feeling threatened
-
(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 here.
I think that if the police are allowed to have it, everyone should be allowed to have it. Police are not the military; they're civilians. So all other civilians should have the same access cops get, or cops should get the same access that everyone else does.
-
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.
I think that the left should absofuckinglylutely be getting strapped.
The good news is that leftists have been strapped for years. The bad news is that, 1) they're mostly using Mosin-Nagants and Makarovs because they're red fudds, and 2) most people that are politically left of center are not leftists. (I'm a leftist; I do have a Mosin-Nagant, but it was a gift, and I hate shooting it. I prefer my AR-15 and AR-10.)
-
Before the current political climate I would have said it should be a lot harder to get a weapon (except maybe a long gun), and we need to reduce the quantity at least three orders of magnitude (thousandth).
But the current political climate really makes it a stark choice. My visceral reaction is that with the gestapo kidnapping people off the street and sending them to remote gulags, the suspension of due process and constitutional rights, political leadership holding themselves above the law …. We really need guns. All of them. For everyone, to defend against tyrants as the gpframers f the constitution intended
Then I came to my senses. My more considered reaction is the anger, divisiveness, bigotry, and general craziness accepted out in the open, is just going to lead to untold deaths, feuds, more spite and anger, more lawlessness. We need to send Sherman through the south, confiscating all firearms
Then I came to my senses.
Except you didn't. You rationalized, and thought that someone else would save you, instead of you and the people you care about saving yourself. The floodwaters are rising, and you're on the roof; you either have to get your own ass to safety, or drown, because FEMA's been defunded, and no one is coming.
-
(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]Canada.
I think that the bar to owning any projectile weapon should be very high, and have tiers that go progressively higher with the type of weapon requested. Hunting rifles? Comparatively easy. Hip-wielded auto cannon capable of sending 300+ rounds a minute down range? Yeah, that’s a decade-plus of effort to get licensed and approved.
Proactive qualifiers would include psychological testing, social media monitoring, lack of criminal convictions, wait times for both weapons and ammo, tracking of ammo consumption, extensive training and marksmanship minimums, and red flag laws. Any violent ideation such as fascism, accelerationism, religious extremism, or white supremacy would be instant disqualifiers.
On the flip side, once someone passes the thresholds, they should be able to own any damn weapon they want. Even clear up to naval ordinance and other heavy weaponry. Want to romp around your 500ha property with a fully functional Abrams tank? Go right ahead - just ensure that a fired shell never goes beyond your property’s border or there will be legal hell to pay.
Now active carry is yet another issue. At which point, unless the person is in a high-risk job or has been under the receiving end of actual threats to their life, any carry should be highly questionable. If an average person wants to cosplay with live weaponry while out in public, questions need to be raised about their mental stability. A mentally stable person is not going to be wandering about with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder - there is absolutely no need for that under virtually 100% of all cases.
-
I thought In New Zealand you are allowed to walk into an airport with a spear for ceremonial welcomes.
Disclaimer, I dont live in New Zealand, or know anything about it's laws, but a ceremonial welcome hardly seems the same as intent to use it as a weapon.
-
Abolishing the police is an overly broad demand that can't really be taken that seriously as an actual, society wide, legislative course of action.
That being said, it might still be worth advocating for as a matter of negotiation, and it's worth abolishing many specific existing police forces and replacing them whole cloth with new professional forces.
And no, gun ownership should not be allowed. It's fucking asinine to think that the world will be a better place when you allow anyone to point and click murder someone on a whim.
Guess what happens when you let good people buy guns? Bad people buy them more frequently, and in greater quantities.
Guess what happens when you challenge your local government's use of force with you own personal cache of weapons? Oh look, every police force in the country just bought APCs and militarized to make that infeasible.
You'll still always need hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. and you will likely need to have special circumstances where someone or their security guard can get a firearm for exigent circumstances, but by and large the idea of allowing widespread firearm ownership for personal defense reasons is nonsense. All of the arguments fall apart when you examine their effects at a systemic level.
Can't agree more.
-
(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
Q1: people don't trust the police
Q2: people don't know what they want, but they do know they don't trust the police.
Q3: This is a false premise. You can do both, but I am gathering you believe that the resulting "lawlessness" would be bad.
Q4: the best take is to reform police to the point that most do not carry firearms and are basically trained social workers. Firearms should be greatly regulated by a combination of insurance, technology, and psychological testing.
Q5: The concept that good guns cancel out bad guns is fantasy.
Q6: Yes, this can be done independently of whatever US decides to do with gun control
