this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
54 points (78.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33259 readers
1562 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(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]

::: spoiler


(Also its funny how the far-right of the US is both pro-gun and pro-police, I'm confused by that as well) :::

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 days ago

Hell no, as few people as possible should have guns. Regular police don't even need them.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Neither this nor that. Your options are too simplistic.

Of course, police needs guns.

Some civilians need guns, too. But not many. They should be able to get them, but they have to prove their need. It needs rules set up in advance to define what kind of needs qualify for getting guns. And then it needs laws against gun abuse.

In addition, soldiers need guns. They even need weapons that are much stronger. So there must be boundaries between several kinds of weapons, and normal people cannot get all kinds. And there must be boundaries between what police can do and what soldiers can do. For example, soldiers must never go against civilians, and nobody has the right to order them so, and they can never get punished for denying such an order.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

but they have to prove their need

No. They should have to prove their competency. Need is too easy to dispute. We dont get to dictate why someone needs a gun any more than why they need a car. If they want one, have the means, and demonstrate compliance with safety guidelines, then they shouldn't be denied. Canada handles this fairly well.

School shootings demonstrate why some people should absolutely be denied access to guns.

The current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

prove their competency.

That's a good thing, but comes after the need.

current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.

If it's about bringing down a bad government, it can be done with pitchforks as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Need is too easy to dispute.

Because it needs to be disputed. You want a gun, you make a case for it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

People shouldn't have guns. Why would you need a gun? To protect yourself? Well, if you have a gun, the one you are protecting yourself from has a gun too. See, not really protection at all, it just enables you both to hurt each other much more seriously.

Just look at all the school shootings - most of those would never had happened had guns been harder to get.

Edit: Look at murder/kill statistics for countries that allow its citizens to have guns. I don't think guns = safety, but rather guns = more deaths and leas safety.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (7 children)

So banned people who are above average in size and strength because they could hurt you much more seriously?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Would you extend that to knives as well? The logic still applies, and there's a serious movement to limit knife access in the UK.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

Knives and guns aren't at all comparable weapons. One allows the user to quickly kill multiple people at ranges up to several hundred meters, the other gives the user a significant advantage (edge) in melee combat against an unarmed/unarmoured opponent.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

No reason to carry knives in public, but knives shouldn't be banned. Knives have many useful applications in daily life. Compared to guns, it takes rather a long time to kill several persons with a knife compared to a gun - guns are by magnitudes more dangerous and lethal.

Bow and arrow, baseball bat etc. etc. all could be weapons, but the problem with guns is the speed it can kill multiple persons.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (4 children)

No reason to carry knives in public

Knives are so useful, I think carrying a multitool with multiple decently sized blades is very reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Fwiw, there's knives and there's knives. What you describe is a category that's afaik generally allowed. What's not is the kind that extends with the push of a button (spring loaded, as I understand it; I'm not a weapons person). Opening it from the state you carry in need to be a two-handed process, presumably to make it less accessible to go for as well as giving the would-be victim a second to get the hell out of there or call for help or whatnot

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

i can't just trust people holding guns. but yeah, i don't trust cops either. (i'm not american)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

US / PNW

People who have not committed violent crimes should have the right to own and purchase any firearm. From my point of view, the NFA is a violation of individuals’ rights and should be abolished. The concept of a concealed carry permit, permit to purchase, “gun free zone”, or firearm licensing / registration are a violation of peoples’ rights. Firearm function and safety should be taught in schools again, including safe storage. Failure to follow firearm safety or safe storage resulting in bodily harm ought to be a criminal offense with heavy consequences, especially in cases that result in death.

Policing in the US is in dire need of reform. “Qualified Immunity” needs to end. Officers ought to be held to higher standards than the rest of the population, which includes using their judgment for appropriate levels of force and facing consequences for excessive force. Murderers do not get paid administrative leave or a new job in the next state, they get a trial by jury. Use of deadly force in self defense against an officer of the law ought to be justifiable after being tried in court. Traffic enforcement, response to mental health crises, response to domestic disputes, and response to reports of threats/violence require separate skillsets and should be handled by separate teams with their own training and qualifications.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

The issue I see with the logic that "Everyone should have the right to carry a gun everywhere, until their negligence causes harm" is the massive consequence of someone messing up with a gun.

Guns are so extremely lethal that when accidents happen (they will eventually happen), it is likely to result in death or disability. It seems pretty clear to me that society overall is safer for everyone the fewer guns there are around. It doesn't really matter if the person that shot me due to negligence loses their license, I've already been shot, and they shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›