Do you believe that the people should be able to have guns to protect themselves, or should the police have the sole authority to own and posess guns to protect the people?
Do you believe that the people should be able to have guns to protect themselves, or should the police have the sole authority to own and posess guns to protect the people?
(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)
You're viewing part of a thread.
A gun can be used in defense. I don't understand the want to remove the one thing that gives you a chance at survival, while a literal fascist is in power right now....one that just built a concentration camp and sells merchandise to it like it's funny...guns are dangerous, but they're the only thing that equalizes everyone when force comes into play.
but they're the only thing that equalizes everyone when force comes into play.
This is fucking idiotic.
Are you not aware that the government has bigger, better, and more autonomous guns than you do?
Tell that to the people of Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan...those bigger guns cannot patrol a street corner. Occupation requires soldiers.
You know how you change the people who support you into rebels? Bomb the house right next to theirs and kill a few of them as well as the rebels.
Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan
Lmao, you think they were fighting back with 9mm pistols that they carried to Walmart to feel tough?
Bruh those armies fought back with conventional military guns and mixtures of conventional military explosives and IEDs.
the largest causes of death in the U.S. armed forces were small arms fire (31.8%),
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Afghanistan is the same thing....small arms and IEDs. If you don't know what an IED is and suggest that civilians cannot build them, then you're arguing in bad faith.
Small arms doesn't mean pistols, it means weaponry that doesn't have to be mounted to something else.
It includes automatic and semi-automatic military rifles (like M16s and AKs) and light machine guns (like SAWs and RPDs).
Again, those wars were fought primarily with military weaponry, not handguns.
Pistols are military weaponry. Most pistols are designed for sale to militaries as their primary audience.
Regular pump shotguns were used in WWII for clearing trenches. The really common AR-15 in the US is a very close equivalent of the M16. Most hunting rifles are comparable to most sniper rifles.
Which small arms are used mainly comes down to what is available to carry, what ammunition is available, and how well they hold up in local conditions. The AK range is extremely popular because it holds up extremely well in a wide variety of conditions with minimal maintenance and it does especially well in desert/sandy conditions compared to almost every other rifle. It is also mass produced in a ton of places and as a result ammunition is plentiful.
They mainly use weapons produced for militaries because that is what is available and reliable enough for their use. They would have used any small arms they could get their hands on that performed as well.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/small arm
a handheld firearm (such as a handgun or shoulder arm)
Civilian rifles are semi-auto...
Around 20million AR pattern rifles are in civ hands in the usa.
Edit: downvoting us doesn't make you correct. This isn't reddit. Votes don't matter here