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

Ask Lemmy

33250 readers
1579 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) :::

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 40 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml 36 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Probably harder to get than a driver's license.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 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.

[–] char_stats@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I might be wrong, but I believe ONE OF the reasons why American police is so shitty is because every citizen might be—and often is—carrying a gun. This causes stress in the police force, higher chances of casualties among them as compared to other countries, so it builds feelings of fear and "acting first, asking later" in most situations.

Sure, many of them are also power-tripping assholes on top of that.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe they shouldn't become cops then.

[–] char_stats@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago

Yep! I wasn't justifying them.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Indirectly. They use the fact that people could be armed to justify their behavior, especially the overuse of 'he's got a gun' when the person doesn't. But many people interact with other people in dangerous situations while attempting to deescalate which the police tend to use the possibility as justification for escalating violence.

Mental health professional: talk down the person who is having a crisis

Police: shoot while claiming they are afraid for their life from an unarmed 12 year old

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

available, but hard to get

Then only the rich can have guns.

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

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not hard to get as in expensive, hard to get as in the amount of training and certifications you need in order to legally own a gun.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, and I have understood it in the same way.

On the poor end:
Would you sponsor all these trainings and certificates for everybody who can't afford them?

On the rich end:
Don't you think that as a rich person you could delegate most of the hassle to somebody you pay? (not saying to buy false certificates, but even that is thinkable)

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe this is what they had in mind.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don’t put that racist shit on me.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Any time something is hard to get then it is available to whoever has power and denied to minorities. While you may not have intended to mean that, it is the end result of the approach you are promoting.

[–] bufalo1973 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hard to get doesn't mean expensive. It means you can't have it if you can't handle it. Like a car. Nobody would give a driving license to a blind person. And nobody should have a gun permit if you are mentally unstable.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Expense is not the only way to make something hard to get, and gun laws have a long history of being made in a way that intentionally or unintentionally makes it difficult for minorities.

Many of the historical laws they found were virulently racist, restricting access to weaponry for enslaved people, Indigenous Americans and other racial minorities.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-02-07/if-we-must-rely-on-history-and-tradition-to-assess-gun-laws-does-racist-history-count

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How do you propose keeping guns away from people prone to violence, criminals, and the insane?

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

There is a massive gap between handing out guns in happy meals and being hard to get.

Committing violent crimes or being of unsound mind are perfectly fine reasons for restricting possession as long as there is due process and the possibility of restoring the rights under certain conditions. If someone is charged with a violent crime then they shouldn't have possession of firearms until that matter is settled.

There will always be the cases where someone has zero history of violence before they commit a crime so it wouldn't be perfect, but even in the US most states have restrictions based on obvious reasons someone shouldn't have a gun.

[–] chonkyninja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cool, what about a nailgun? You ever see what they can do? Better make them harder to get. /s

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

There are tools for nailing things and tools for killing things.