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)
:::Americans tend to forget that very few countries have outright banned guns. What we have is gun control, which means that you have to qualify for owning a gun, but as soon as you do that, you can own a gun.
-
In some European countries, most police are unarmed. It seems to work okay. Here in Canada, they all carry guns, but it's serious paperwork if they ever have to unholster it.
Those "some European countries" would be UK and Ireland for historical reasons. It is not really a widespread thing anywhere else.
-
I'm strictly anti-gun, as I believe are most Europeans. Civilians shouldn't be allowed to keep ranged weapons, period.
But it is legal to do that in all European countries though. You just need to qualify for a license. And that process seems to mostly do the job, especially compared to the US.
-
I mean... in Non-North-American Western Countries, that's already a thing, right?
Edit:
Australia + Many countries in Europe requires permits and that requires a "good reason". From what I heard, the police is usally much less shitty than the US counterpart.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
(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)
:::Hell no, as few people as possible should have guns. Regular police don't even need them.
-
What about hunting?
Hunting should be banned.
-
but they're the only thing that equalizes everyone when force comes into play.
This is fucking idiotic.
Are you not aware that the government has bigger, better, and more autonomous guns than you do?
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.
-
But it is legal to do that in all European countries though. You just need to qualify for a license. And that process seems to mostly do the job, especially compared to the US.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah I still don't approve of it, that was the question. I'm all for stricter gun laws worldwide. The US obviously need to catch up most urgently, but that doesn't mean I have to like the status quo elsewhere.
-
Those "some European countries" would be UK and Ireland for historical reasons. It is not really a widespread thing anywhere else.
Dutch police aren't always I think (but often yes), and I seem to remember that Icelandic police almost never does. I don't know for most countries but afaik it's not as uncommon as that for them not to wear guns
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Not fully, no. My understanding is that the available data of countries with and without general-citizen gun ownership, all else being equal, shows that normal issues (crime, personal conflicts, ...) becomes gun-involved issues a lot more frequently so apparently it does help
-
Guns should be available, but hard to get, and hard to keep.
Cool, what about a nailgun? You ever see what they can do? Better make them harder to get. /s
-
I think we should get rid of guns entirely and go back to hand-to-hand combat with swords and clubs. Guns make it too easy. I want a challenge.
back to hand-to-hand combat with swords and clubs.
How very nice!
I'm going to invent black powder then, so I become the boss!
-
How about en exam on morals and ethics?
That sounds good. I once had a job interview where bud was trying to piss me off to see if I had a temper. Something like that could be useful as well.
-
If one has to pay for it then it isn't a right.
Driving a car is a privilege.
In most countries, owning a gun isn't a right, its a privilege.
-
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.
