this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
40 points (80.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33167 readers
1119 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) :::

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 44 points 20 hours 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 31 points 13 hours 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 29 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 7 points 15 hours ago

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 (2 replies)
[–] remon@ani.social 27 points 13 hours ago

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

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 19 points 21 hours ago (4 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.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 6 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

Citizens not having guns is not going to stop criminals from having guns

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 9 points 17 hours ago

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.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago

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.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 8 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Guns can now be 3d printed as we can see Luigi Mangione allegedly printed that gun

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 15 points 21 hours 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.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 13 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 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.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Also, you can't hand-to-hand a bear.

Polearms > Bear arms

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 4 points 11 hours 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!

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 11 points 21 hours ago (4 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 20 hours 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 (3 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours 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)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 points 14 hours 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 9 points 8 hours ago

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.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago

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.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours 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 10 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 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.

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I agree, take the word gun out of an argument and replace it with car or tool, something common.

If the argument no longer makes sense, neither does the argument.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (5 children)

The difference is that guns have only one purpose.

People can get hurt during an accident while using a tool, but for a gun, something gets hurt every time it's used as intended.

I don't think we should be using power tool regulations for guns.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (7 children)

A gun can be used in defense. I don't understand the want to remove the one thing that gives you a chance at survival, while a literal fascist is in power right now....one that just built a concentration camp and sells merchandise to it like it's funny...guns are dangerous, but they're the only thing that equalizes everyone when force comes into play.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

My list of suggestions for regulations does not mean that some of them aren't already in effect.

As for the rest: ok.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 8 points 16 hours 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.

[–] thenose@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours 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

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours 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 8 points 16 hours ago (1 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.

[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Those "some European countries" would be UK and Ireland for historical reasons. It is not really a widespread thing anywhere else.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] viking@infosec.pub 5 points 21 hours ago (9 children)

I'm strictly anti-gun, as I believe are most Europeans. Civilians shouldn't be allowed to keep ranged weapons, period.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Civilians shouldn't be allowed to keep ranged weapons, period.

So my bow should be illegal? What about a slingshot?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Romkslrqusz@lemmy.zip 5 points 18 hours 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.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 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 (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›