(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)

  • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
    57·
    6 days ago

    Abolishing the police is an overly broad demand that can’t really be taken that seriously as an actual, society wide, legislative course of action.

    That being said, it might still be worth advocating for as a matter of negotiation, and it’s worth abolishing many specific existing police forces and replacing them whole cloth with new professional forces.

    And no, gun ownership should not be allowed. It’s fucking asinine to think that the world will be a better place when you allow anyone to point and click murder someone on a whim.

    Guess what happens when you let good people buy guns? Bad people buy them more frequently, and in greater quantities.

    Guess what happens when you challenge your local government’s use of force with you own personal cache of weapons? Oh look, every police force in the country just bought APCs and militarized to make that infeasible.

    You’ll still always need hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. and you will likely need to have special circumstances where someone or their security guard can get a firearm for exigent circumstances, but by and large the idea of allowing widespread firearm ownership for personal defense reasons is nonsense. All of the arguments fall apart when you examine their effects at a systemic level.