(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)

  • OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    144 minutes ago

    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.

    • @iamdefinitelyoverthirteen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      13 minutes ago

      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.

  • @Treczoks@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    32 hours ago

    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.

  • sunzu2
    link
    fedilink
    13 hours ago

    I am pro gun owner ship… But I don’t own a gun due to liability risk being higher than my need to have one. I lived in more rural location that calculus would change.

    But American gun culture is pathetic anf thats the root cause of the issues we have with guns. Mouth breathers cos playing operators

  • I Cast Fist
    link
    fedilink
    66 hours ago

    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[1] 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.


    1. Caçador, Atirador, Colecionador (hunters, sport shooters, collectors) the term used in Brazil to denote civilians that can legally buy guns ↩︎

  • @UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    46 hours ago

    I am from planet earth and I’ve observed human behavior long enough to know i would never disarm. You sick fucks are to never be trusted.

  • @thenose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    67 hours ago

    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

  • @breecher@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    2912 hours ago

    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.

  • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    713 hours ago

    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.

    • chonkyninja
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 hours ago

      Cool, what about a nailgun? You ever see what they can do? Better make them harder to get. /s

          • snooggums
            link
            fedilink
            English
            33 hours ago

            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.

              • snooggums
                link
                fedilink
                English
                13 hours ago

                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.

      • trashcan
        link
        fedilink
        1019 hours ago

        It’s depressing to hear that’s not already the case.

        • @DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          13
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          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.

          • char_stats
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

            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.

            • snooggums
              link
              fedilink
              English
              23 hours ago

              Indirectly. They use the fact that people could be armed to justify their behavior, especially the overuse of ‘he’s got a gun’ when the person doesn’t. But many people interact with other people in dangerous situations while attempting to deescalate which the police tend to use the possibility as justification for escalating violence.

              Mental health professional: talk down the person who is having a crisis

              Police: shoot while claiming they are afraid for their life from an unarmed 12 year old

  • @Fondots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    816 hours ago

    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.

      • @Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        140 minutes ago

        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.

  • magnetosphere
    link
    fedilink
    615 hours ago

    U.S.

    If police were the honest, fair, law-abiding heroes they’re presented as, this would be a much simpler question.

    Ideally, I’d choose to replace the police (not merely slap an “under new management” banner on the police station) with a MUCH more transparent and just organization that genuinely serves and protects the public.

    I also don’t think there’s enough of an emphasis on safety regarding public ownership of guns. All laws need to be tightened, standardized between states, and loopholes need to be firmly closed. I know we Americans have been taught that gun ownership is an important constitutional right, but I think that in 250 years, guns have proven to do much more harm than good. Decisions on gun laws need to make public safety their primary consideration.

  • @bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    1819 hours ago

    I’m going throw something out there. Should people who own firearms be required to have some kind of insurance (like car or home owners) on case of accidents or theft? Also I’m in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

    • @Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Personally I wholly believe that gun owners should be held as accomplice to any crimes committed with their stolen firearms if it was acquired through negligence.

      Edit to say I’m a gun owner.

      • @Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        818 hours ago

        So a friend borrows your car, and runs someone over, do you feel the same way?

        Or if someone steals a hammer out of your toolbox and beats someone to death?

        I understand, and I’m all for responsible gun ownership, but what you’re saying would be hard to prove and easy to use as a weapon against certain people.

        • @Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          1818 hours ago

          Short answer is yes. If I made the decision to loan my car to someone and they intentionally committed a crime with it, I think I should be investigated for my involvement. If it turns out I had no reason to suspect this was going on, cool. If it turns out this was a problem waiting to happen, then I’m responsible for my role in it.

          Now the hammer is a bit of a mess, because it is not difficult to acquire a hammer so you would have a hard time saying the crime couldn’t have been committed if not for my specific hammer.

      • @DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        419 hours ago

        What if you have a safe and the thief is a locksmith and stole your gun?

        I mean I think by this logic, people who don’t lock their car doors and the car gets stolen/carjacked, the car owner would face the consequences of whatever the thieves used it for?

        (Genuinely asking)

        • @Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          1418 hours ago

          It’s right there in the comment. You took the effort to store your guns in the manner required by the law and they got stolen by someone with markedly more skill than average. You’re not to blame. Now if you leave your gun in your toolbox in the back of your truck or casually on your night stand, there’s a problem and it isn’t the skill level of burglars.

    • @Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      114 hours ago

      Should people who own firearms be required to have some kind of insurance

      Yes, if you

      1. allow poor people to have them, or

      2. if you allow stupid people to have them, or

      3. if you allow people who sometimes make mistakes to have them

  • snooggums
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    US

    People in cities should not use guns for self protection, but should also not rely on the police. Instead, less lethal options should be used for self defense like pepper spray, lasers, or maybe rubber bullets. In the vast majority of cases, densely populated areas will have other people close enough that resisting will discourage continued violence if a commotion is started, just because of possible witnesses.

    In rural areas people choosing to use guns they have for hunting for the occasional threat is fine because distances are much further and there is nobody nearby to come and scare off someone by being a witness.

    The settings are different and have different needs.

    As far abolishing the police, the idea is that the current antagonistic police forces are so broken and do so many things that they need to be replaced with something else. Traffic enforcement shouldn’t be the same force that deescalates violent situations which shouldn’t be the same force that responds to people in distress. Having the same people respond to all situations where there is a tiny possibility of violence after being taught to treat everyone as a threat is why we get police rolling up and shooting people in mental crisis, breaking into people’s homes and shooting dogs over some weed, and shooting drivers who are trying to comply with their confusingly shouted ‘instructions’.

    • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      815 hours ago

      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.

      • @breecher@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        412 hours ago

        Those “some European countries” would be UK and Ireland for historical reasons. It is not really a widespread thing anywhere else.

        • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          13 hours ago

          Hmm, what are the historical reasons?

          I wasn’t actually sure what the breakdown is across the continent, so I left it vague. I’m guessing French police are always armed.

        • Luc
          link
          fedilink
          210 hours ago

          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