(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]
---
(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.
As a bonus; police will consider anyone with a gun visible as a threat and act before things happen. There is no such possibility in th US due to the rate of civilian gun ownership.
In a functional society, gun should not be allowed to be used for personal defense by the public, the police should have a monopoly on using guns for protection.
But, guns should be allowed for hunting, sports and a general hobby.
If a member of the public used a gun for self defense, an investigation would determine if that was justified or not.
Former infantry. You fucking cosplayers are a danger to yourself and others.
Um, I mean, you should be able to get hand grenades. One each. And go camping with whiskey.
Long guns and hunting weapons sure. I’d ban everything else with heavy prison terms for illegal firearms.
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.
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.
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
Also, you can’t hand-to-hand a bear.
Polearms > Bear arms
Bring back the phalanx.
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!
US / PNW
People who have not committed violent crimes should have the right to own and purchase any firearm. From my point of view, the NFA is a violation of individuals’ rights and should be abolished. The concept of a concealed carry permit, permit to purchase, “gun free zone”, or firearm licensing / registration are a violation of peoples’ rights. Firearm function and safety should be taught in schools again, including safe storage. Failure to follow firearm safety or safe storage resulting in bodily harm ought to be a criminal offense with heavy consequences, especially in cases that result in death.
Policing in the US is in dire need of reform. “Qualified Immunity” needs to end. Officers ought to be held to higher standards than the rest of the population, which includes using their judgment for appropriate levels of force and facing consequences for excessive force. Murderers do not get paid administrative leave or a new job in the next state, they get a trial by jury. Use of deadly force in self defense against an officer of the law ought to be justifiable after being tried in court. Traffic enforcement, response to mental health crises, response to domestic disputes, and response to reports of threats/violence require separate skillsets and should be handled by separate teams with their own training and qualifications.
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
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.
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.
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
I think the people should be allowed to have guns within reason. What I mean by ‘within reason’ is that no civilian should be able to own something ridiculous like an RPG. I don’t believe that to be an unreasonable demand. Though I must say, it would be cool to use one.
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.
US
Our gun laws are a patchwork of really dumb state and federal laws and regulations that often don’t make much sense and there is little consistency. I think we pretty much need to go back to square one with basic shit like defining what constitutes a “firearm” and go from there.
I have a lot of thoughts on this and I’m not going to write them all out here right now, because it would get really lengthy and I just don’t feel like it right now (if there’s interest in hearing what this random internet stranger has to say I may write it up later)
But in general I think that people should be able to own guns, but I also think that there should be a lot of hoops to jump through to get them, background checks, proficiency tests, education , training, insurance, psychological evaluations, storage requirements, etc.
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 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.
I don’t think that police are technically considered civillians, although they are under civilian control (of the governor/mayor).
They are absolutely civilians, although they no longer believe they are. Technically the military is supposed to be under civilian control as well (e.g., the governor is supposed to have control of the national guard in their state, the president is supposed to control the six branches of the military).
Look at it this way: the military is not supposed to be used for civilian law enforcement. That very, very strongly implies that police are not military, and are hence civilian.
If that’s the case, then surely there’s nothing wrong with police have military weapons and using military tactics, right?
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.
pepper spray
Not even that?
Fuck that law.
Pepper spray is for non-lethal self-defence and should be legal.
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.
Tell me you’re from the US without telling me you’re from the US.
Let’s have a hypothetical scenario, imagine there was a machine that could be used to murder people easily, even if that wasn’t their main purpose anyone could use it in a fit of rage to kill someone, in fact anyone could kill someone by accident with this machine. You would want this machine to be regulated, have people evaluated psychologically, and have them take classes and perform an exam to ensure they won’t kill anyone by accident.
Did you think guns? I meant cars. And asking if no one or only cops should have guns is like asking if no one or only bus drivers should be able to drive. There’s a midterm that most of the world has already reached, where we require people to go through some process to prove they can operate the death machine safely.
