this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
56 points (79.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33227 readers
1337 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
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days 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.

[–] bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 2 days ago

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

[–] Mailloche@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

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

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 16 points 2 days 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.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 10 points 2 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.

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days 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 2 days 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)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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)
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 8 points 2 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)
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 2 days 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)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›