(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)
Look, I’ve been in the army, I know firearm safety, and I strongly disagree. People can slip and fall, or inexplicably fumble and drop stuff. People with no history of it can suddenly have seizures or heart failure that causes them to seize up or collapse. None of these are common, but all can occur. If you happen to be carrying a loaded firearm when it happens, that firearm can go off. Even if you have the safety in place. Shit can malfunction.
Regardless, if I get shot, the question of whether it was intentional, an accident, or due to negligence is really a secondary matter. The primary issue is that I just got shot, and that can have irreversible consequences.
My point is that if I happen to get shot, I really don’t care how statistically unlikely it was to happen in the way it did. The most effective way to prevent firearm injuries/deaths is to keep firearms away from people that don’t strictly need them.
Only if the booger hook is on the bang switch and the external safety (if present) is disengaged, at which point the muzzle was supposed to have been pointed at an intended target.
For the statistically improbable situation you describe to unfold, quite a few stars would have to align during a live fire exercise, you’re likely to be a participant or spectator of that exercise and aware of the risks. This is not something that would happen in most peoples’ day to day lives “walking down the street” unless someone is already doing something super illegal with a firearm (brandishing).
Please define ‘strictly need’ for me, because the meaning is a variable depending on who you ask.
In my eyes, you don’t ‘strictly need’ a seatbelt - until you’re in a high speed collision. So you wear one anyways.
You don’t ‘strictly need’ a fire extinguisher - until you’re faced with a large fire. So you keep one around anyways.
You don’t ‘strictly need’ a firearm - until you are being met with deadly force from a person or animal, need to hunt, or need to control a pest for food security.