(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]

---

(Also its funny how the far-right of the US is both pro-gun and pro-police, I’m confused by that as well)

  • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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)

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          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@europe.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

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

            • snooggums@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.