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

Ask Lemmy

33231 readers
1512 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 [email protected] or [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected] or [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 days ago (19 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days 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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe this is what they had in mind.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don’t put that racist shit on me.

[–] [email protected] -1 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)