Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

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).

Long guns and hunting weapons sure. I'd ban everything else with heavy prison terms for illegal firearms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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