(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)
In the US, The police don’t protect people. They don’t actually have any obligations to do so. I am kinda wondering how the “police protecting” works out when say several big dudes kick your door in and bad-stuff you and your house. The gun owner defense themselves in that scenario, but the police-reliant folks…do what? Wait for the murder investigation to catch the baddies? It’s an odd predicament, given how awful guns can be and how pad they are for a society. As proven by stats from pro and anti-gun countries. Personally, I will continue to carry a pistol…even if it has only been used against a rabid racoon that was getting too close to the house. I don’t think civilians need dozens of insane weapons though. So I don’t know where that puts me on the spectrum. Gun user, and enjoyer, that recognizes they are a huge problem.
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.
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.
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
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.
In the 2021, the most recent year I could find easy data for, the UK had 4.7 deaths by firearms per 10,000,000 inhabitants. That’s a pretty low rate (see here for more detail and comparisons with other countries). Most of the police here don’t have guns. Most of the criminals here don’t have guns. Most of the civilians here don’t have guns.
I, also, don’t have a gun and would find it pretty difficult to legally get one. That said, in the last decade, I’ve been clay pigeon shooting with shotguns a few times and target shooting with rifles a couple of times. I don’t feel the need to tool up in my everyday life. If I want to go shooting, I can do, but I have no need or desire for a concealed carry permit for a handgun or any other firearm for self-defense purposes.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.)
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.
Replied to wrong post, nothing to see here!
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.
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.
Caçador, Atirador, Colecionador (hunters, sport shooters, collectors) the term used in Brazil to denote civilians that can legally buy guns ↩︎
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
Maybe a good starting point could be a good training for the police in handling situations without using the gun.
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.
