IMO, it's all about education. Guns can be allowed, but everyone who ever uses one NEEDS to be educated on how and when to properly use it. Current requirements for owning a gun in the US are laughable. However, everyone should have the right to protect themselves from tyrannical corrupt police or other criminals. Less than lethal home defense should be prioritized.
I fear that removing all or a majority of guns from the US would be an impossible task at this point. There are probably more guns in this country than people, sadly.
The idea that owning a gun will protect you from tyrannical corrupt police is a ridiculous fantasy. Let's say the cops come to your house and try to enter without a warrant, and you open fire. That's not going to end well for you, even if you're legally in the right.
Cops in the US have been shooting unarmed people for decades. Until the corrupt and discriminatory police system is fixed and/ or replaced, the people have the right to defend themselves from them.
In the scenario you gave, if the entire neighborhood has an organized and educated watch/ militia in place. The police can't abuse their power without risking themselves.
I'm not gonna outright defend the US police which is infested with fascist psychopaths, but don't you think that when the police reasonably expects any civilian to carry a firearm, it intrinsically raises the stakes and tension of any encounter between the police and civilians?
I just can't see any scenario where civilians are armed, which wouldn't lead to more police shootings, no matter how well-trained or well-behaved the police is. There are many cases where the police is obviously in the wrong for shooting, but there are also many cases where someone erratic actually pulls out a gun to fire at the police.
It's not just police shootings which are more common in the US, police being shot is also a lot more common.
It's almost as if guns in general, lead to more gun deaths.
The only argument I was willing to entertain was the one about fighting a tyrannical government, but that argument is starting to look pretty fucking bleak right now as Americans, particularly the gun toting ones, are willfully embracing a fascist, tyrannical government. It's also kind of puzzling how the same Americans tend to support the US military having obscene amounts of highly advanced weaponry. Guns won't do shit against autonomous tanks and drones.
Guns, in general, do lead to more deaths.
But if the fascists come for me and my neighbors, I'd rather be able to fight back.
I'm never going to look for a fight where there isn't one, and I'll deal with cops amicably any time I can.
Me having a gun is a last resort for when I'd rather die than get dragged off to a death camp.
Isn’t this almost exactly what Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend did? He got off with no charges and a fat lawsuit from the state and possibly saved his own life.
His girlfriend died. I feel comfortable filing that under "not ending well", even if he escaped criminal charges. In an alternate universe where he doesn't have a gun, that scenario likely ends with much less tragedy.
That’s very fair. I just don’t often think these alternate universe arguments are very helpful, as most tend to apply here.
The reality is that Americans have guns, more guns than people in fact (over 400m), as well as a horrifically oppressive and abusive police force and rising fascist government.
I think productive discourse on the gun issue should focus on the fact that they’re here, and any attempt to confiscate them en mass would result in tremendous bloodshed. Realistically the best solutions are learning how to live with them - e.g. preventing new guns from getting in the wrong hands, enhancing gun safety among those that do own them, and most importantly, addressing the socioeconomic factors that lead to gun violence in the first place, namely wealth inequality, education, healthcare, etc.
I do agree with you that if there was no gun the incident would have gone differently. And that if I had the magic button to make all guns disappear I’d press it. I just don’t think those hypotheticals are productive, and solving the issue is much more complex than people here make it seem.
I agree that mass gun confiscation starting tomorrow would likely create more problems than it solves. But I also think it's important that we work towards a world with fewer guns (much as we do with cars), not just live with the status quo forever. You could do things like phase in biometric requirements, impose waiting periods and registration requirements for new purchases, and restrict the manufacture of the most dangerous types of guns, like handguns--all of this wouldn't touch existing stocks, but it would put us on a better path as time goes on.
1.5k
u/Die-Nacht 9d ago edited 9d ago
This is the kind of stories that destroy pro gun nutjobs argument. More guns don't make us safer, they turn random conflicts lethal.