(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)
The key flaw in the logic is that American police are there to protect people. They aren’t.
https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/
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.
Hell no, as few people as possible should have guns. Regular police don’t even need them.
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.
Also, you can’t hand-to-hand a bear.
Polearms > Bear arms
Bring back the phalanx.
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
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!
Guns should be available, but hard to get, and hard to keep.
Probably harder to get than a driver’s license.
It’s depressing to hear that’s not already the case.
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.
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.
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
Maybe they shouldn’t become cops then.
Yep! I wasn’t justifying them.
available, but hard to get
Then only the rich can have guns.
No sure if that’s what you had in mind?
Not hard to get as in expensive, hard to get as in the amount of training and certifications you need in order to legally own a gun.
Yes, and I have understood it in the same way.
On the poor end:
Would you sponsor all these trainings and certificates for everybody who can’t afford them?On the rich end:
Don’t you think that as a rich person you could delegate most of the hassle to somebody you pay? (not saying to buy false certificates, but even that is thinkable)
Maybe this is what they had in mind.
Don’t put that racist shit on me.
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.
Hard to get doesn’t mean expensive. It means you can’t have it if you can’t handle it. Like a car. Nobody would give a driving license to a blind person. And nobody should have a gun permit if you are mentally unstable.
Expense is not the only way to make something hard to get, and gun laws have a long history of being made in a way that intentionally or unintentionally makes it difficult for minorities.
Many of the historical laws they found were virulently racist, restricting access to weaponry for enslaved people, Indigenous Americans and other racial minorities.
How do you propose keeping guns away from people prone to violence, criminals, and the insane?
Cool, what about a nailgun? You ever see what they can do? Better make them harder to get. /s
There are tools for nailing things and tools for killing things.
If you can get a gun to protect yourself, criminals are easily going to have guns too.
Simpler all around if nobody has guns.
Or, at the very least nobody should have a handgun. A full length rifle or shotgun is a lot harder to conceal when you are using it for nefarious purposes.
Uninventing guns is not actually one of the options. The police are definitely going to have them, because if they didn’t they’d be under threat from upstarts with a 3D printer or just a lathe, and they know it.
Nobody said anything about removing them from police. I have no problem with police being armed.
It is technically possible to make every other gun illegal and force people to dispose of them. Again it’s unrealistic but its not impossible.
It’s also possible to eliminate all commercial ammo availability, and even most home production (by banning the sale of powder for reloading). Home powder products are inferior, and potentially even dangerous. Safe and functional casings are also extremely difficult to produce.
Would people try to get around these restrictions? Sure, but it would still dramatically reduce gun use.
Citizens not having guns is not going to stop criminals from having guns
Japan says otherwise. Gun crime is practically non-existent, despite a population of over a hundred million people.
It’s unrealistic to apply this to the US given how many guns already exist, but it’s not actually impossible.
Yes it will. The idea thaat criminals will mass produce homemade firearms is nonsense. Even the cartels don’t do this at any scale.
I’m Toronto it’s like 13% of guns that are domestic, the other 87% are smuggled in from the unregulated shithole that is America, 0% are homemade.
Guns can now be 3d printed as we can see Luigi Mangione allegedly printed that gun
Yeah, but they’re not because no one wants to fire something that might blow up in their hand, and it’s not actually that easy to mass manufacture illegal guns, even with 3d printers and CNC machines.
Like I said, we all know you can make a homemade gun with online information. That has been the case for literally the last 2 decades. And yet, underground homemade gun manufacturing is virtually non existent, because guess what, it’s not that easy to do at scale in a way that won’t get you immediately caught and all your equipment and supplies impounded.
Literally every developers western country that bans guns has not seen any noticeable rise in homemade guns being used at any regular pace. In what world do you think Norwegian clubs are being shot up with homemade uzis?
A lot of guns are stolen. Also if there isn’t a big a market, manufacturers won’t make as many. Supply drops so does criminal possession.
Not that I’m advocating either way, just a counter to your point.
The genie is out of the bottle here, but a polite society would make guns unavailable for everyone. Guns have one purpose: to kill things. Who’s to decide who the “bad guys” and “good guys” are?
Let’s just hope that there’s no such thing as “mental illness”, or “emotion”, that could make a “good guy” want to do something “not good”.
Who’s to decide who the “bad guys” and “good guys” are?
Probably the person with the gun.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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
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.
Doubt anyone’s going to see it at this point but figured I’d write out some of my other thoughts now
When I talk about going back to square one and defining what a firearm even is, I mean that quite literally. Muzzleloaders aren’t considered firearms, and no they’re not likely to be used in a mass shooting, but they’ll still kill someone just as dead as a modern firearm. There’s stupid loopholes about antique guns that may function in much the same way as a modern firearm.
They’re fucking guns.
And with an eye to the future, it may be worth building in a little future with other weapons technologies that may come into play that should be regulated similarly. There are high powered air rifles today that are comparable in stopping power to some firearms, shouldn’t they be regulated in a similar manner? Or what if advances in battery technology and such make coil/rail guns viable as man-portable or even concealable weapons?
We also classify things in really stupid ways. Take a look at some of the weird shit around short barrel shotguns/rifles and “any other weapons” where you can have 2 basically identical weapons that are classified differently just due to a quirk of how they were manufactured. An AR-15 with a short barrel is a no-no unless you’re willing to jump through some extra hoops, but you can build an AR-15 “pistol” and slap a -not-a-stock “wrist brace” on it.
And machine guns are a no-no, but bump stocks, binary triggers, forced-reset triggers, etc. that get you basically the same effect are a-ok. Not to mention that absurdity we had for a few years where shoelaces of a certain length were technically classified as a machine gun.
I basically want to create 4 categories
Hunting arms- single shot or manually operated rifles and shotguns with barrel length 16" and greater, rimfire rifles, muzzleloaders, and certain larger handguns. Low rate of fire, not easily concealable.
Concealed carry weapons- handguns.
Other firearms- short barrels rifles/shotguns, semi-auto shotguns and centerfire rifles
Machine guns, destructive devices, etc. we’re moving bump stocks, binary triggers, forced reset triggers, etc. into this category.
For the first 3 categories, the main difference is going to be in the types of training required, as well as the required insurance rates. I think it’s also fair to be allowed to purchase hunting arms at 18, and bump the other categories up to 21. *
For the 4th category, we’re keeping things largely the same as the current NFA regulations, but we’re fixing some of the wonky definitions, and increasing the cost of the tax stamp, because the $200 it was set at in the '30s really hasn’t kept up with inflation.
We’re also going to make most gun accessories subject to the same sorts of background checks and such. And we’re moving silencers into this category.
We’re unifying gun laws across the country. No more wonky patchwork of different states having their own laws. If it’s legal, it’s legal across the whole country, if it’s illegal, it’s illegal everywhere.
I hate the term, but we’re closing the “gun show loophole” (which really has nothing to do with gun shows) all transfers must go through the process. We’re also expanding the locations you can do them at, not just FFL dealers anymore, police stations, and some details would need to be figured out for security reasons, but maybe some places like DMVs, post offices, courthouses, etc. and we’re getting rid of any fees. No excuses to not do things properly.
We’re beefing up the background checks, getting all states on the same page with what does and does not disqualify someone from owning a gun, red flag laws, probably disqualifying people with DUIs (if I don’t trust you with a car I certainly don’t trust you with a gun)
And we’re delisting marijuana so that if you like to smoke up once in a while you’re able to keep your guns.
*Along with the changes in ages, we’re also making some changes to police and military. If you can’t legally purchase and carry a handgun or rifle as a civilian, you don’t get to carry them in your line of work either. You’re exempt from the draft until 21, you can enlist at 18 but only serve in non-combat roles until 21, and if you do enlist before age 21, you will receive education and training equivalent to that many years of college or vocational training. Police academy will become a 4 year program equivalent to a bachelors degree. Also off-duty officers do not get any special exemptions in their eligibility to carry firearms, and their duty weapon stays locked up at the station when off the clock. There’s a whole lot more I have to say about police reform too, but that’s an entirely different rant.
Firearms must be stored in a properly-rated safe that is either firmly attached to the structure of your home - studs, floor joist, concrete, brick, or other masonry walls, etc. or that is heavy enough that it can’t be easily moved by 2 guys with a hand truck. No leaving them in your car, unsecured in your garage,in the night stand, etc. when you’re not able to directly oversee them. We’re not going to be doing in-home inspections on this, but if it’s somehow found that you’re storing them improperly, like if someone is able to steal them because they weren’t properly secured, then you lose your right to own guns.
If you lose your firearm (I work in 911 dispatch, the amount of calls I’ve had for guns found in bathrooms, movie theaters, etc. that someone left behind is pretty worrying) or have a negligent discharge (that isn’t the result of a manufacturing defect,) you lose your right to own guns.
We’re making some major changes to stand your ground laws and castle doctrine, I don’t have a problem with castle doctrine as a general concept, but a lot of states’ implementations leave a lot to be desired. When your outside of your home, I think the focus should be more on duty-to-retreat (again, I work in 911 dispatch, I don’t think a night goes by that I don’t have a dozen calls that could have been solved without police intervention if my caller just fucking walked away but instead escalated into some sort of fight)
No, we are not arming teachers. Full stop.
I’m probably missing some things here, and there’s a lot of details I’m glossing over a bit because this comment is already too long, but hopefully this kind of paints a general picture of where my head is at.
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
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’.
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.
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
