As some have put. Its ineffective in terms of there are always alternatives. I don't know many people who are ok for weapons to be allowed in all places. courts, public buildings, their own home against their will. I feel that individuals and locals should be able to limit them but they need to make rules for them being transported through and it should not apply to private property. So someone can have it in their home and if they want to bring it somewhere will need to do whatever the law stipulates for transport like tagging and appropriate containers and seperation of ammo and gun and such. They could then bring it to a place where it is allowed and take it out again.
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
33 points (86.7% liked)
Asklemmy
50895 readers
494 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place
A car can be used as a weapon as can cleaning products, baseball bats, tire irons, kitchen knives, sharp sticks... etc. If someone wants to purpose something as a weapon, then they will.
Crime is defined by law and law is defined by government and/or society. As long as people exist, crime will exist. It is not sound reasoning to believe "crime should not exist" because if it were made illegal to wear black shoes, crime exists again, and as such it is an impossible standard.
Rather, I accept that crime will always exist in the world as a result, but aspire to a world wherein there is no real need to ban things like guns because no one uses them to harm other people - the same goes for cars, baseball bats, etc.
Banning registered/licensed owners from owning firearms does not do much, because the last thing a potential mass shooter does when obtaining a firearm is register or get a license. As such, laws that ban only really affect people who are generally responsible in the first place.
If all firearms suddenly disappeared, people would just build rudimentary ones if they wanted one for violence. Shinzo Abe was killed by a gun someone built in their home. To prevent that you would have to make the purchase of metal piping and whatnot illegal as well.
Stopping mass shootings, gun violence, and violence in general is not a matter of banning something, it is a matter of education and societal responsibility. Read about the comparatively high gun ownership yet low shootings in Switzerland for example.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178924000776
A car can be used as a weapon as can cleaning products, baseball bats, tire irons, kitchen knives, sharp sticks… etc. If someone wants to purpose something as a weapon, then they will.
Sure, but as seen repeatedly in countries where guns are heavily regulated, the harm people can do improvising an everyday device as a weapon, is magnitudes of order lower
Cars I think are a great example. We have ALL seen how irresponsible people in general are with them, even though we do have a full framework of regulations around them. How can anyone see that and think "oh sure Larry is a crazy person, drives drunk all the time, usually on his phone, but I am sure he will be super responsible with an automatic machine gun"
the harm people can do improvising an everyday device as a weapon, is magnitudes of order lower
Not necessarily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack
You could also fill the car with a lot of gasoline canisters and fertilizer if you so wished. These are all also a lot easier to get than a firearm, particularly if you are crazy.
Agree that regulation can always be better however.
How can anyone see that and think “oh sure Larry is a crazy person, drives drunk all the time, usually on his phone, but I am sure he will be super responsible with an automatic machine gun”
I think you are drawing a false causal relationship/strawman here. Almost no one thinks this, including 99% of people who own and use firearms. Certain people should be prevented from owning and operating firearms and certain people should also be prevented from owning and operating vehicles.
A person who operates a vehicle irresponsibly should have their license and vehicle taken and be jailed in such a case.
A person who uses a firearm irresponsibly should have their firearms/firearms license taken and be jailed in such a case.
Such a person using either thing irresponsibly can result in the loss of life, but I don't see as many people trying to ban vehicles, gasoline, and fertilizer because they are capable of killing multiple people.
To me it sounds like the issue you have is not with vehicles or firearms, it is with Larry. This brings us back to my point about this being a societal/educational problem rather than a banning problem. I get the feeling if Larry wants to hurt a lot of people, he will find a way to do so regardless. If you want society to be safe from Larry, you would have to go a lot further than banning only firearms.
Alternatively, you tackle the societal responsibility/education/mental health problems that society has, and maybe Larry stops drinking, gets therapy for his mental problems, gets off social media and now feels as though there is no need to hurt anyone or to act irresponsibly with guns, vehicles, gasoline, knives, baseball bats, tire irons, or whatever else.
Not necessarily.
Yes, and there have been cases of guns not going off and failing to kill anyone but that is a very pedantic take... The fact of the matter remains, guns are designed to kill people, other things could kill people but not been designed for such purpose, they tend to be less effective
I think you are drawing a false causal relationship/strawman here. Almost no one thinks this, including 99% of people who own and use firearms. Certain people should be prevented from owning and operating firearms and certain people should also be prevented from owning and operating vehicles.
The point is that, since seemingly we all agree (even gun owners as per your comment)... why do we do it at all when we all agree it's a bad idea?!
A person who uses a firearm irresponsibly should have their firearms/firearms license taken and be jailed in such a case.
Which is the case in 99% of the world... not sure why we need to pretend there is any logic or reason in the USA when it comes to this topic (or a growing list of other topics for that matter)
To me it sounds like the issue you have is not with vehicles or firearms, it is with Larry.
Not quite... I would not trust a toddler to get a pie out of the oven because, no matter how well trained, such toddler will likely burn themselves and ruin the pie. Sure, Larry is a disaster, but we have COUNTLESS examples of Police Officers, arguably the most trained demographic to hold guns, who constantly misuse them.
The amount of people that could truly be trusted with guns, under special circumstances, is very very slim. No amount of education or training would make a human 100% trust worthy with guns 100% of the time. There is a reason a huge percentage of violent crime falls in the category of "passion" crimes
Alternatively, you tackle the societal responsibility/education/mental health problems that society has, and maybe Larry stops drinking, gets therapy for his mental problems, gets off social media and now feels as though there is no need to hurt anyone or to act irresponsibly with guns, vehicles, gasoline, knives, baseball bats, tire irons, or whatever else.
We should do those things... and still not let almost anyone own a gun. The case is clear, there is simply no societal benefit to allow widespread ownership of certain guns
I believe weapons should be banned and that crime should not exist in the first place.
You can move to Sweden
The reason you cannot ban weapons is because anything could be a weapon. A rock, pencil, barb wire, glass, car, etc. Your ideals are not possible, it just sounds good. Banning weapons wouldn't make crime vanish. Also the whole point of crime is that you break the rules to do it. Your strict rules would just be broken by certain people hence creating the "crime". Guns and knives weren't created to cause crime but they are efficient at harming people. They both have very practical uses outside of crime.
If you truly want to REDUCE crime, then focus on the mindset of people, change it for the better. For a positive mind won't harm for no reason or just because of their feelings.
The reason you cannot ban weapons is because anything could be a weapon. A rock, pencil, barb wire, glass, car, etc.
I know what you mean, but there's always nuance, a limit, when it comes to things like this. Just because you can use anything as a weapon, doesn't mean everyone should have access to everything. Rocket launchers? Bio weapons? Nukes?
Banning weapons wouldn't make crime vanish. Also the whole point of crime is that you break the rules to do it. Your strict rules would just be broken by certain people hence creating the "crime".
Similarly, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If there's no need to ban things because criminals will do it anyway, why have laws at all? Murder, rape, assault etc.
Ultimately, societally, we attempt to come to a collective idea of what we think is "right", and then attempt to enforce that.
Initially most are very straight forward, like "don't kill people"... But then the deeper you drill into it, the more complicated it gets. What if you accidentally kill someone? You give them something they're allergic to without knowing it? Should you get life in prison?
You give them something they're allergic to without knowing it? Should you get life in prison?
No of course not but this has nothing to do with weapons or really your banning crime ideals.
Also all the weapons you named are already banned for civilians and only major governments have atomic weapons. Which they shouldn't have because they are the biggest criminals.
I'll stick with my guns or knives for self defense and if someone tries to ban. It won't go well for them
At the end of the day, people like to own guys and there is a very profitable industry that wants to keep it that way.
people like to own guys
Unintentionally calling out the 13th Amendment for what it really is
I'd really like everybody who is into guns, to be into guys instead. The world would be a better place.
If we were allowed to own guys? Well...used to be you could, I guess. I think you still can in some countries, Libya maybe still.
Not uhhh.... exactly something I agree with you on, but go off I guess. I'd rather people use guns to prevent people from owning guys.
people should not have guns, noone needs them and the places without guns all seem to do fine without them, while it can even be observed in the us curretnly how having guns does nothing to protect you from facism. Only a strong legal system does. In mexico it can even been seen what other the us guns law did to other countries.
guns dont offer safety, only escalte violence.it should be the contranband the police and border security should focus on, instead of a needless war on drugs.
some guy with a gun wont win against a state ever, The weapons are way to advanced. This could been seen in the middle east for the last decades when fighting "terrorists", and even these were better equiped than anyone who just has a gun.
these gun people delude themself into thinking it would be safer for them if they had a gun, while they are fighting the danger they are themself creating
some guy with a gun wont win against a state ever
No, but an armed populace does win against a state. Decentralized armed resistance.
On top of that, how do I defend my home and property against intruders without a gun? Seems crazy to even suggest tbh. I’m hours from police access, longer/impossible in winter weather. I need to be able to defend my family…
decentralized armed restiance is what usually is called terrorist, this can hardly be called winning, this is litteraly what the taliban did basically.
also beeing hours away from the police in itself would be a probelm already and sure is not usual.
But even then it already is more likely that you hurt someone with the gun by accident than ever "defending" against any imaginary intruder, if you not live in some lawless wasteland. But then it suddenly is not a problem beeing hours away from any medical service, is it now
edit: But sure if someone lives in some remote place where it is likely that like wild animals attack a home it is different i guess,
still in the end i always ask myself what future i would want to look like, and it sure would not be a place where people have guns
Any State will call an uprising “terrorism”. But it crosses a line and becomes “Resistance” at some point and as public opinion sways, it results in toppled governments.
Being an hour or more from police isn’t that unusual in the western United States. There’s a lot of land and not everyone lives in cities.
Yes it’s more likely that I kill myself than stop and intruder or a bear - but that’s my problem, not yours imo (and yes I realize this libertarian view isn’t shared by everyone).
More than half the people in my region are carrying guns. Yet I’ve never seen one used in public, and rarely see one at all. It’s very low crime here.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Only problem is, if the law enforcement is really controlled by the rich - which it is most places.
In terms of the US, it is simply impractical. The political will is nowhere near the level required, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Agree or disagree, there are too many people for whom this right is not really negotiable. Within that context, yes, I own firearms even though I would really rather not. My right-wing neighbors certainly aren't going to give theirs up, so I think it would be naive for me to.
You can't outlaw weapons when nearly anything can be used as a weapon
Can you please elaborate on: "crime should not exist in the first place?"
The main issue is that for the potential harm of having some gun violence, the downsides are significant. Guns by the selves being banned doesn't stop murder or anything. There are many ways to murder someone. You can do it with a rock. Guns in many ways make society more peaceful because it equalizes people. Women in particular can be every bit as dangerous as men if they need too.
The real issue with banning them, besides the people who will die because they cannot defend themselves, is that governments are extremely evil and always have been. Just in the past century governments have deliberately murdered in excess of 100 million people. Guns won't necessarily stop authoritarian regimes from taking power, but they do make it very difficult to oppress people, as every cop who has to arrest people have to worry about how they are perceived by the community. With an armed population, the state at least has to keep a venere of morality and legitmency to the people. America is a country that has more cops and prisons thay almost any nation in the world. They try to work around this by eroding away residence a little at a time, but this causes the economy to fail since our society creates so many losers and corruption runs wild.
Anyways I'm generally progun, maybe they shouldn't be allowed in some areas like in populated areas or public spaces, outside of security for peaceful protests, but banning them entirely seems like a bad idea to me. Most of the world's countries have already fallen to extreme orwellian authoritarianism and they are working on the U.S right now. Once the rich have robot police, 100 people will be able to control the entire human species with massive violence and terrorism. We are going to need guns at that point anyways, and hopefully before then if people wise up and stop hating each other and realize the state and the corporations are the ones doing everything possible to enslave and brainwash us, and destroy our freedom.
With an armed population, the state at least has to keep a venture of morality and legitment to the people
Or they need to be more heavily armed. Which they are.
Most of the world's countries have already fallen to extreme orwellian authoritarianism and they are working on the U.S right now
And yet only we have armed drones in schools to prevent school shootings.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Emotions, mainly fear
You really see don't see any guns being used against ICE at the moment.
That itself is enough to underscore the power differential between the state and the civilians, even in a country with legal gun ownership.
They're trying to manufacture a crisis, so using guns against ICE is what they want to justify their next steps.
I do not disagree with you though
Some people on Reddit were talking about how only dictators would want to disarm people
"I don't know why any individual should ever have a right to have a revolver in his house [...] people should not have handguns."
• Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan and the NRA advocated for gun control once the Black Panthers started arming black communities. See: Mulford Act
Banning weapons is a problem if the government needs to be overthrown by its people. In places like the USA, this is increasingly obvious that traditional systems of government regulation are rapidly dissolving.
a legal monopoly on violence is the cornerstone of the states power. while there are definitely valid reasons to want to restrict access to the tools of violence, the state will always have that access, and if it restricts the general populations access to same, it becomes far easier to oppress them.
also, if we're gonna ban weapons, i'd like to start with SUVs.
load more comments
(3 replies)
To make a counterpoint to all the views stated here: statistically, countries which have banned guns see far fewer gun deaths per capita than America. Gun bans work to reduce death, whatever else you may think.
"stopping this is impossible, says only country where this regularly happens"
In the case of the USA, there's more than just the lack of gun restrictions at play. If you were to compare knife deaths per capita in the UK (we all know how much of a problem stabbings are in the UK) and USA, the US is leading by a significant margin (and that's on top of gun deaths ofc).
For a gun ban to reduce death in the USA you'd first need to addres atleast some of the other systemic problems the country has been neglecting and/or intentionaly expolting.
I'm not sure I'd agree that tackling system factors would be required for a gun ban to reduce deaths - though some of those factors arguably could have more impact than the ban would.
I think one of those systemic issues is that the US has an unhealthy relationship with guns, from my understanding they're often treated like toys rather than lethal weapons, and I think strict regulation would help combat that too.
The problem is that the ban is one-sided, and generally boils down to "the oppressed are disarmed but the oppressors are not."
Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and pretty strict gun control came in. Now it's only really sport shooters (who are a pretty responsible bunch from my experience), rural property owners with a good reason (pest control largely), certain occupations like specific security (cash transport for instance), cops and military that have guns. And criminals.
We still get the odd shooting but they're pretty rare and to my understanding, almost never done by legal owners.
I'm not sure what things were like back in 1996 but I don't believe we really have the gun culture so there's not much opposition to gun control by the majority.
This is the point that I think a lot of people miss. Yes, people will still have unlawful access to guns, specifically those who don't care about laws in the first place. But I would just about bet my house that since guns in general are so much harder to get there, that it's also harder for said criminal (or aspiring criminal) to obtain one.
Plus it's barely the criminals doing mass shootings (speaking as an American), it's usually some depressed white dude who just happens to have access to a firearm that they're not qualified to operate. The gangs and criminals that have weapons generally speaking, only use them on each other (accidents and exceptions obviously occur).
The question is how does America, in its current firearm saturation, hit the same goal. I think it would take a generation for all the guns from legal owners to be turned in or recycled, because most don't want to give them up. If the government immediately required special permits and only allowed for specific uses and types of arms, there would likely be a legitimate organized revolt from gun nuts.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›