(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)
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.
Would you extend that to knives as well? The logic still applies, and there’s a serious movement to limit knife access in the UK.
No reason to carry knives in public, but knives shouldn’t be banned. Knives have many useful applications in daily life. Compared to guns, it takes rather a long time to kill several persons with a knife compared to a gun - guns are by magnitudes more dangerous and lethal.
Bow and arrow, baseball bat etc. etc. all could be weapons, but the problem with guns is the speed it can kill multiple persons.
Knives are so useful, I think carrying a multitool with multiple decently sized blades is very reasonable.
Fwiw, there’s knives and there’s knives. What you describe is a category that’s afaik generally allowed. What’s not is the kind that extends with the push of a button (spring loaded, as I understand it; I’m not a weapons person). Opening it from the state you carry in need to be a two-handed process, presumably to make it less accessible to go for as well as giving the would-be victim a second to get the hell out of there or call for help or whatnot
It is super easy to discreetly open a folding knife in a fraction of a second before use. No longer than a spring loaded knife or one with a thumb opener thingy or one in a sheath.
You need to buy better knives buddy. Two hands lol.
Absolutely:]
You just said
Yupp :]
Knives and guns aren’t at all comparable weapons. One allows the user to quickly kill multiple people at ranges up to several hundred meters, the other gives the user a significant advantage (edge) in melee combat against an unarmed/unarmoured opponent.
So banned people who are above average in size and strength because they could hurt you much more seriously?
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.
You could make the same argument about a car would you be banning those as well?
I didn’t realise anyone could legally use a car without training and license.
I didn’t realize anyone could legally use a gun to kill or hurt people. 😂 Great logic homie
Go ahead and read thru our posts again I think you missed something.
So making 16 year olds take a test and train hours to be better shots would prevent gun violence?
Maybe one day Walt Disney will rule the earth and everyone including every police and military personnel will throw all weapons into a volcano, shit id be right there cheering but you know you’ve wasted enough of my time.
Who said 16?
Who said the licensing requirements would be the same?
All the best to you and your imagination. (Though Walt Disney is very much not anti-gun or war.)