(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)
Every man for themselves, free-for-all, no resurrections.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
pepper spray
Not even that?
Fuck that law.
Pepper spray is for non-lethal self-defence and should be legal.
USA citizen here (unfortunately)
Guns are designed to kill, or at least cause harm.
I don’t think we should kill, or even cause the kind of harm that guns inflict.
∴ Guns shouldn’t exist.
I recognize this is a super idealistic approach, but this is just a “general concept of how a society should run.”
Yes, I’m taking into account hunting. We shouldn’t be killing non-human animals either. Sports is a more difficult problem to tackle for me, I recognize others like shooting for sporting events, and it’s not causing harm inherently. Might even be safer than American football, lol.
Having said that, a more realistic approach would be a gun buy back program and a slow phase out of guns for our police or at least a reduction / demilitarization of our police. I have no hope that this will happen, but wow, it’d be nice.
For the US I feel like this is a lost cause. Good luck trying to repeal the 2nd amendment. Cat’s out of the bag, the gun discussion happened in 1789, we’re like 249 years late. How do you close the pandora’s box?
Yeah, I mean a potential path could be a narrowing of how a “well regulated Militia” is defined. But I agree, it’s a fully lost cause.
What’s the point of an organized society and a government anyway? Not to care for each other and reduce harm, right? /s
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
Absolutely, why should only some people be afforded a right.
Criminals will be criminals, take guns away and they start running cars through crowds.
Try living somewhere that’s not America for a minute.
I mean we’re seeing this in Europe with mass shootins and such, though to a much lesser extent than America.
No, we’re not. There is literally nothing in Europe that happens in a year that compares with the gun violence and homicide rate happens in America in a weekend.
Which is why I said “to a much lesser extent.” Mass shootings are on the rise in multiple European countries, as are homicides and hate crimes. I mean hell, France is looking to restrict knives over this stuff. Having a non-broken society contributes a lot more than what murder weapons are available, and now that European societies are generally fraying at the seams murder rates are unsurprisingly rising.
Yeah, and you keep phrasing that like it’s comparable, it’s not.
Put statistics behind your words if you think they’re rising to a place of being comparable with the US.
Okay I don’t like talking like this, but what part of “to a much lesser extent” do you not understand?
I get it, it just makes it sound like widespread ownership of guns aren’t directly contributing to the problem in a major way.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think the right to have a gun should also include the legal requirement to take and pass a tactical shoot course. No point in having a gun if one can’t hit their target in a stressful situation. Paper target shooting isn’t good enough.
I’ll go further, and say the text of the 2nd Amendment implies gun owners should be members of a well-regulated militia. I think every State Guard should accept anyone who applies, and give them basic training. In exchange for being part of the reserve, and passing firearm classes, you can keep and bear arms.
If you don’t want to be part of a well-related militia, no guns. If you can’t pass firearm training, no guns.
100% agree. This morning I was thinking about a reply (didn’t have time before leaving for work) along these lines. But more of reporting to any nearby active shooter situation and helping the cops in exchange for a free gun and training. I like your idea as well.
Should it be state funded? Or should only people who can afford it be allowed to exercise their rights?
User pay. Just like buying the gun, driving a car, a boating license, or a hunting license.
The last thing I want in an active shooter situation is someone with more money than skill waving a gun around making the situation worse.
If one has to pay for it then it isn’t a right.
Driving a car is a privilege.
In most countries, owning a gun isn’t a right, its a privilege.
I am aware of that, but this comment chain started with the context of it being a right.
OP also didn’t want this to be focused around USA gun rights.
This entire comment chain started with your comment that began with it as a right and the US has not been mentioned once.
I think the right to have a gun should also include the legal requirement to take and pass a tactical shoot course.
Sorry for engaging with your premise!
How about en exam on morals and ethics?
That sounds good. I once had a job interview where bud was trying to piss me off to see if I had a temper. Something like that could be useful as well.
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.
Should people who own firearms be required to have some kind of insurance
Yes, if you
-
allow poor people to have them, or
-
if you allow stupid people to have them, or
-
if you allow people who sometimes make mistakes to have them
-
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
