(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)
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.
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.
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.
A gun can be used in defense. I don’t understand the want to remove the one thing that gives you a chance at survival, while a literal fascist is in power right now…one that just built a concentration camp and sells merchandise to it like it’s funny…guns are dangerous, 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.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Afghanistan is the same thing…small arms and IEDs. If you don’t know what an IED is and suggest that civilians cannot build them, then you’re arguing in bad faith.
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.
Exactly. A gun is not a car; it has no other purpose other than to kill. The “tool” argument is disingenuous at best.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.