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

Ask Lemmy

33301 readers
1117 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 !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. 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 info@lemmy.world. 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 !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


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 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 63 points 1 week ago

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/

[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 week 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.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 40 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Guns should be available, but hard to get, and hard to keep.

[–] bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably harder to get than a driver's license.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's depressing to hear that's not already the case.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 12 points 1 week ago (9 children)

available, but hard to get

Then only the rich can have guns.

No sure if that's what you had in mind?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] remon@ani.social 38 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

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.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 6 points 1 week ago

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!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 week ago (13 children)

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 week ago

I think that people should be able to have guns to defend themselves. I also think that, in almost all circumstances, people should not use guns to defend themselves.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week 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.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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^[Caçador, Atirador, Colecionador (hunters, sport shooters, collectors) the term used in Brazil to denote civilians that can legally buy guns] 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Should it be state funded? Or should only people who can afford it be allowed to exercise their rights?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] thenose@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

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

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 10 points 1 week 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.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

American, white, liberal, redneck gun nut here. If you're talking about "defund the police", that's yet another idiot liberal slogan that misses the mark. The idea is to take police funds and pay for workers who can handle situations police should never have been sent to. Want to kill yourself? Call the cops!

The far right loves cops because cops are on their side, or are perceived to be. To put it bluntly, guns are for shooting marauding black people, not white people. See all the stories about white people being shocked when law enforcement doesn't go their way? Yeah.

Also, I suspect people who are anti-gun have never had violence inflicted upon them, or cops who are far away, or haven't had a bear wander in the dog door, or haven't had an enraged redneck struggling to be polite because they're visibly armed. In related news, my MAGA neighbor came stomping down here to kick my ass, turned right the fuck around when I went inside for my .45.

I could write all night on the subject, but let me leave it at this: Now is not the fucking time for Americans to disarm themselves. The only reason fascists haven't run us completely over is that they know there will be a real chance we'll fucking kill them. Look where the ICE raids are happening, in the places where guns are the most suppressed.

Yes, this all sucks, but it's where we're at in America.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm not against gun ownership, but it needs to be regulated.

Compare it to your car. You need to prove your ability with a test, carry your license with you, register your vehicle, and in some places, it must pass an annual safety inspection. We do all this just to get to work and back, but I can stop at one of many stores within 10 miles of my house and buy armfuls of military hardware designed to do nothing but kill.

Handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are all you need. Small magazines, no burst or fully automatics. Everything gets registered.

Some extra context: There are a LOT of areas in the US that are rural enough that wildlife is a serious threat, and hunting is a sustainable option for meat. It makes no sense to tell those people they can't have one.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (15 children)

You can buy a car at any age, with no insurance or license, drive it without on private land, and it can cross into any state in the nation.

You also cannot buy military hardware in 10 mins at your local store. All rifles in the USA that you purchase without a form 1 and a boat load of cash are bolt action or semi-auto. You cannot go to the store and buy a fully automatic or burst action rifle or handgun. I don't know where you got your info from but it's way way wrong.

Size of magazines also are a completely pointless exercise. Swapping a mag is a 1/2 second process, and with practice can get it down to even quicker.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week 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)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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'.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

I am from planet earth and I've observed human behavior long enough to know i would never disarm. You sick fucks are to never be trusted.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›