(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)
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.