Sorry if this is not the place for that kind of discussion. I would like to be civil, please. Some people on Reddit were talking about how only dictators would want to disarm people.
Can I have some explanation on your opinion and why? I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place. My opinion may change, but I believe there should somehow be strict rules regarding crime to reduce the amount of it and just have a place where it will not be worried about.
You must log in or # to comment.
You can’t outlaw weapons when nearly anything can be used as a weapon
I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place.
You can move to Sweden
Only problem is, if the law enforcement is really controlled by the rich - which it is most places.
In terms of the US, it is simply impractical. The political will is nowhere near the level required, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. Agree or disagree, there are too many people for whom this right is not really negotiable. Within that context, yes, I own firearms even though I would really rather not. My right-wing neighbors certainly aren’t going to give theirs up, so I think it would be naive for me to.
people should not have guns, noone needs them and the places without guns all seem to do fine without them, while it can even be observed in the us curretnly how having guns does nothing to protect you from facism. Only a strong legal system does. In mexico it can even been seen what other the us guns law did to other countries.
guns dont offer safety, only escalte violence.it should be the contranband the police and border security should focus on, instead of a needless war on drugs.
some guy with a gun wont win against a state ever, The weapons are way to advanced. This could been seen in the middle east for the last decades when fighting “terrorists”, and even these were better equiped than anyone who just has a gun.
these gun people delude themself into thinking it would be safer for them if they had a gun, while they are fighting the danger they are themself creating
At the end of the day, people like to own guys and there is a very profitable industry that wants to keep it that way.
people like to own guys
Unintentionally calling out the 13th Amendment for what it really is
I’d really like everybody who is into guns, to be into guys instead. The world would be a better place.
The main issue is that for the potential harm of having some gun violence, the downsides are significant. Guns by the selves being banned doesn’t stop murder or anything. There are many ways to murder someone. You can do it with a rock. Guns in many ways make society more peaceful because it equalizes people. Women in particular can be every bit as dangerous as men if they need too.
The real issue with banning them, besides the people who will die because they cannot defend themselves, is that governments are extremely evil and always have been. Just in the past century governments have deliberately murdered in excess of 100 million people. Guns won’t necessarily stop authoritarian regimes from taking power, but they do make it very difficult to oppress people, as every cop who has to arrest people have to worry about how they are perceived by the community. With an armed population, the state at least has to keep a venture of morality and legitment to the people. America is a country that has more cops and prisons thay almost any nation in the world. They try to work around this by eroding away residence a little at a time, but this causes the economy to fail since our society creates so many losers and corruption runs wild.
Anyways I’m generally progun, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed in some areas like in populated areas or public spaces, outside of security for peaceful protests, but banning them entirely seems like a bad idea to me. Most of the world’s countries have already fallen to extreme orwellian authoritarianism and they are working on the U.S right now. Once the rich have robot police, 100 people will be able to control the entire human species with massive violence and terrorism. We are going to need guns at that point anyways, and hopefully before then if people wise up and stop hating each other and realize the state and the corporations are the ones doing everything possible to enslave and brainwash us, and destroy our freedom.
With an armed population, the state at least has to keep a venture of morality and legitment to the people
Or they need to be more heavily armed. Which they are.
Most of the world’s countries have already fallen to extreme orwellian authoritarianism and they are working on the U.S right now
And yet only we have armed drones in schools to prevent school shootings.
Can you please elaborate on: “crime should not exist in the first place?”
You really see don’t see any guns being used against ICE at the moment.
That itself is enough to underscore the power differential between the state and the civilians, even in a country with legal gun ownership.
Some people on Reddit were talking about how only dictators would want to disarm people
“I don’t know why any individual should ever have a right to have a revolver in his house […] people should not have handguns.”
• Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan and the NRA advocated for gun control once the Black Panthers started arming black communities. See: Mulford Act
Banning weapons is a problem if the government needs to be overthrown by its people. In places like the USA, this is increasingly obvious that traditional systems of government regulation are rapidly dissolving.
Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and pretty strict gun control came in. Now it’s only really sport shooters (who are a pretty responsible bunch from my experience), rural property owners with a good reason (pest control largely), certain occupations like specific security (cash transport for instance), cops and military that have guns. And criminals.
We still get the odd shooting but they’re pretty rare and to my understanding, almost never done by legal owners.
I’m not sure what things were like back in 1996 but I don’t believe we really have the gun culture so there’s not much opposition to gun control by the majority.
This is the point that I think a lot of people miss. Yes, people will still have unlawful access to guns, specifically those who don’t care about laws in the first place. But I would just about bet my house that since guns in general are so much harder to get there, that it’s also harder for said criminal (or aspiring criminal) to obtain one.
Plus it’s barely the criminals doing mass shootings (speaking as an American), it’s usually some depressed white dude who just happens to have access to a firearm that they’re not qualified to operate. The gangs and criminals that have weapons generally speaking, only use them on each other (accidents and exceptions obviously occur).
The question is how does America, in its current firearm saturation, hit the same goal. I think it would take a generation for all the guns from legal owners to be turned in or recycled, because most don’t want to give them up. If the government immediately required special permits and only allowed for specific uses and types of arms, there would likely be a legitimate organized revolt from gun nuts.
This post was just a couple below for me, ironic: https://lemmy.ca/post/53325803
Agreed. Although I don’t know if killing healthy animals is a “good reason” to own a gun.
a legal monopoly on violence is the cornerstone of the states power. while there are definitely valid reasons to want to restrict access to the tools of violence, the state will always have that access, and if it restricts the general populations access to same, it becomes far easier to oppress them.
also, if we’re gonna ban weapons, i’d like to start with SUVs.
I think only the state having weapons is the less terrible option instead of everybody having weapons.
But +1 to banning SUVs (and cars in general).
To make a counterpoint to all the views stated here: statistically, countries which have banned guns see far fewer gun deaths per capita than America. Gun bans work to reduce death, whatever else you may think.
“stopping this is impossible, says only country where this regularly happens”
In the case of the USA, there’s more than just the lack of gun restrictions at play. If you were to compare knife deaths per capita in the UK (we all know how much of a problem stabbings are in the UK) and USA, the US is leading by a significant margin (and that’s on top of gun deaths ofc).
For a gun ban to reduce death in the USA you’d first need to addres atleast some of the other systemic problems the country has been neglecting and/or intentionaly expolting.
I’m not sure I’d agree that tackling system factors would be required for a gun ban to reduce deaths - though some of those factors arguably could have more impact than the ban would.
I think one of those systemic issues is that the US has an unhealthy relationship with guns, from my understanding they’re often treated like toys rather than lethal weapons, and I think strict regulation would help combat that too.
The problem is that the ban is one-sided, and generally boils down to “the oppressed are disarmed but the oppressors are not.”
I’ll bite.
I believe most crime is fundamentally due to poverty. I don’t believe you can simply enforce your way out of crime. That would be extremely expensive and wouldn’t do anything about the poverty. You’d be better off giving the police funding to the poor communities. Enforcement would be unequally dished out to poorer areas, creating an oppressive atmosphere. So when people say it’s something a dictator does, it’s because it ignores the fundamental problem in order to jump straight to aggressive policing. Aggressive policing is something a dictator does.
