this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
56 points (79.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33397 readers
1723 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 !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. 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 info@lemmy.world. 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 !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


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) :::

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

While the police should have that power. There should be a institution investigating and persuing police for their abuse of power

[–] the_grass_trainer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Every man for themselves, free-for-all, no resurrections.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

With frequent mass school shootings I would think the only defensible position would be to be for as much gun restrictions as possible, otherwise you'd have to defend a necessary condition to allowing mass shootings to continue.

Absent that condition I think people should be allowed to do what they want without fucking up everybody else.

[–] Mailloche@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Long guns and hunting weapons sure. I'd ban everything else with heavy prison terms for illegal firearms.

[–] decended_being@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

USA citizen here (unfortunately)

Guns are designed to kill, or at least cause harm.

I don't think we should kill, or even cause the kind of harm that guns inflict.

∴ Guns shouldn't exist.

I recognize this is a super idealistic approach, but this is just a "general concept of how a society should run."

Yes, I'm taking into account hunting. We shouldn't be killing non-human animals either. Sports is a more difficult problem to tackle for me, I recognize others like shooting for sporting events, and it's not causing harm inherently. Might even be safer than American football, lol.

Having said that, a more realistic approach would be a gun buy back program and a slow phase out of guns for our police or at least a reduction / demilitarization of our police. I have no hope that this will happen, but wow, it'd be nice.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

For the US I feel like this is a lost cause. Good luck trying to repeal the 2nd amendment. Cat's out of the bag, the gun discussion happened in 1789, we're like 249 years late. How do you close the pandora's box?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] oyzmo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

People shouldn't have guns. Why would you need a gun? To protect yourself? Well, if you have a gun, the one you are protecting yourself from has a gun too. See, not really protection at all, it just enables you both to hurt each other much more seriously.

Just look at all the school shootings - most of those would never had happened had guns been harder to get.

Edit: Look at murder/kill statistics for countries that allow its citizens to have guns. I don't think guns = safety, but rather guns = more deaths and leas safety.

[–] al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So banned people who are above average in size and strength because they could hurt you much more seriously?

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A gun does considerably more damage more easily than simply being strong.

You don't even need to get close. You don't even need to keep meaning to hurt or kill, a single moment's pull of the trigger can do it.

[–] al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

You could make the same argument about a car would you be banning those as well?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›