(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)

  • lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca
    74·
    2 days ago

    but they have to prove their need

    No. They should have to prove their competency. Need is too easy to dispute. We dont get to dictate why someone needs a gun any more than why they need a car. If they want one, have the means, and demonstrate compliance with safety guidelines, then they shouldn’t be denied. Canada handles this fairly well.

    School shootings demonstrate why some people should absolutely be denied access to guns.

    The current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      62·
      2 days ago

      Need is too easy to dispute.

      Because it needs to be disputed. You want a gun, you make a case for it.

    • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
      41·
      2 days ago

      prove their competency.

      That’s a good thing, but comes after the need.

      current US political situation demonstrates why more people should arm themselves.

      If it’s about bringing down a bad government, it can be done with pitchforks as well.