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?

While the police should have that power. There should be a institution investigating and persuing police for their abuse of power

In the US, The police don't protect people. They don't actually have any obligations to do so. I am kinda wondering how the "police protecting" works out when say several big dudes kick your door in and bad-stuff you and your house. The gun owner defense themselves in that scenario, but the police-reliant folks...do what? Wait for the murder investigation to catch the baddies? It's an odd predicament, given how awful guns can be and how pad they are for a society. As proven by stats from pro and anti-gun countries. Personally, I will continue to carry a pistol...even if it has only been used against a rabid racoon that was getting too close to the house. I don't think civilians need dozens of insane weapons though. So I don't know where that puts me on the spectrum. Gun user, and enjoyer, that recognizes they are a huge problem.

Americans tend to forget that very few countries have outright banned guns. What we have is gun control, which means that you have to qualify for owning a gun, but as soon as you do that, you can own a gun.

In the 2021, the most recent year I could find easy data for, the UK had 4.7 deaths by firearms per 10,000,000 inhabitants. That's a pretty low rate (see here for more detail and comparisons with other countries). Most of the police here don't have guns. Most of the criminals here don't have guns. Most of the civilians here don't have guns.

I, also, don't have a gun and would find it pretty difficult to legally get one. That said, in the last decade, I've been clay pigeon shooting with shotguns a few times and target shooting with rifles a couple of times. I don't feel the need to tool up in my everyday life. If I want to go shooting, I can do, but I have no need or desire for a concealed carry permit for a handgun or any other firearm for self-defense purposes.

Hell no, as few people as possible should have guns. Regular police don't even need them.

The key flaw in the logic is that American police are there to protect people. They aren't.

https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/

Germany: I'm fine with the status quo. You really have to prove that you really need a gun to get it - Most Americans would simply not qualify under our rules. The Police has weapons, but they are much better trained than the American Gung-Ho, shoot first, ask questions later cops.

US

Q1: people don't trust the police

Q2: people don't know what they want, but they do know they don't trust the police.

Q3: This is a false premise. You can do both, but I am gathering you believe that the resulting "lawlessness" would be bad.

Q4: the best take is to reform police to the point that most do not carry firearms and are basically trained social workers. Firearms should be greatly regulated by a combination of insurance, technology, and psychological testing.

Q5: The concept that good guns cancel out bad guns is fantasy.

Q6: Yes, this can be done independently of whatever US decides to do with gun control

Guns should be available, but hard to get, and hard to keep.

In a functional society, guns should not be allowed to be used for personal defense by the public, the police should have a monopoly on using guns for protection.

But, guns should be allowed for hunting, sports and a general hobby.

If a member of the public used a gun for self defense, an investigation would determine if that was justified or not.

Brazil recently had an "experience" in getting more lax with gun restrictions. While people were mostly in favor of that before it came into effect, ~4 years later more people were against letting any idiot have a gun.

For every "CAC^[Caçador, Atirador, Colecionador (hunters, sport shooters, collectors) the term used in Brazil to denote civilians that can legally buy guns] kills a robber" there are dozens of "CAC kills family/wife/police/random person". Not only that, with how lax the law got, said CACs also became a bridge to sell or loan guns to criminals, which would usually have to buy them off corrupt police or army. Overall, people feel less safe, because now any argument with a rando can end up with you being shot, even if you're not even involved and just happened to be nearby

One thing to keep in mind is that most police forces exist to protect wealth. If you have wealth, you'll be protected. If you don't, you're a target. Does the police need guns? Not always. Not every criminal is armed and not every armed criminal can only be taken on by "a good guy with a gun"

You cant both abolish the police and then also disarm the citizens, gotta pick one.

You can, but you also need to reorganize a lot of how society works, especially in regards to wealth distribution.

USA citizen here (unfortunately)

Guns are designed to kill, or at least cause harm.

I don't think we should kill, or even cause the kind of harm that guns inflict.

∴ Guns shouldn't exist.

I recognize this is a super idealistic approach, but this is just a "general concept of how a society should run."

Yes, I'm taking into account hunting. We shouldn't be killing non-human animals either. Sports is a more difficult problem to tackle for me, I recognize others like shooting for sporting events, and it's not causing harm inherently. Might even be safer than American football, lol.

Having said that, a more realistic approach would be a gun buy back program and a slow phase out of guns for our police or at least a reduction / demilitarization of our police. I have no hope that this will happen, but wow, it'd be nice.

Canada.

I think that the bar to owning any projectile weapon should be very high, and have tiers that go progressively higher with the type of weapon requested. Hunting rifles? Comparatively easy. Hip-wielded auto cannon capable of sending 300+ rounds a minute down range? Yeah, that’s a decade-plus of effort to get licensed and approved.

Proactive qualifiers would include psychological testing, social media monitoring, lack of criminal convictions, wait times for both weapons and ammo, tracking of ammo consumption, extensive training and marksmanship minimums, and red flag laws. Any violent ideation such as fascism, accelerationism, religious extremism, or white supremacy would be instant disqualifiers.

On the flip side, once someone passes the thresholds, they should be able to own any damn weapon they want. Even clear up to naval ordinance and other heavy weaponry. Want to romp around your 500ha property with a fully functional Abrams tank? Go right ahead - just ensure that a fired shell never goes beyond your property’s border or there will be legal hell to pay.

Now active carry is yet another issue. At which point, unless the person is in a high-risk job or has been under the receiving end of actual threats to their life, any carry should be highly questionable. If an average person wants to cosplay with live weaponry while out in public, questions need to be raised about their mental stability. A mentally stable person is not going to be wandering about with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder - there is absolutely no need for that under virtually 100% of all cases.

US here.

I think that if the police are allowed to have it, everyone should be allowed to have it. Police are not the military; they're civilians. So all other civilians should have the same access cops get, or cops should get the same access that everyone else does.

I think we should get rid of guns entirely and go back to hand-to-hand combat with swords and clubs. Guns make it too easy. I want a challenge.

I think the people should be allowed to have guns within reason. What I mean by ‘within reason’ is that no civilian should be able to own something ridiculous like an RPG. I don’t believe that to be an unreasonable demand. Though I must say, it would be cool to use one.

New Zealand.

Our laws make carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon (in self defence or not) a crime - whether it's a gun, sword, pepper spray, cricket bat, screwdriver, or lollipop stick. This makes sure that when someone robs a corner store the owner gets jailed for having a baseball bat behind the counter. It's absurd.

The law not only doesn't equalise your chances, it actively forces you to be at a disadvantage when defending yourself, and by the time any police arrive the assailant is long gone. Most criminals don't have guns (except for the multiple armed gangs of course), but plenty of them bring bladed weapons, there have been multiple cases of machete attacks.

I'm all for gun ownership for the purpose of property defence. Including strong legal defences for home and store owners repelling assailants.

I don't think just anyone should be able to go and purchase a gun no questions asked, it should probably be tied to some kind of mandatory formal training, e.g. participation in army reserves. It should definitely be more difficult than getting a driver's licence (but I also think a driver's licence should be harder to get than it is now. The idea that you can go and sit a written test and then legally pilot a two ton steel box in areas constantly surrounded by very squishy people is kind of absurd to me).

If i take a look at north eu countries where’s the lowest crime rates that im aware of. I can see that it’s really hard to get gun and it’s not for self defence. Also the police have a 2,5+ years training. If you compare it with the most gun loving country you see where the problem lies. Worth comparing the look and feel of prisons and the number of prisons per population. So yh that’s my view. Im from Hungary (pretty far right country for my mixed ass) lives in the UK different shit and stinks of a different odour lol

If you can get a gun to protect yourself, criminals are easily going to have guns too.

Simpler all around if nobody has guns.

Or, at the very least nobody should have a handgun. A full length rifle or shotgun is a lot harder to conceal when you are using it for nefarious purposes.

Former infantry. You fucking cosplayers are a danger to yourself and others.

Um, I mean, you should be able to get hand grenades. One each. And go camping with whiskey.

US

My side should have guns, the other side shouldn't. I don't think it's possible to generalize a principle beyond that, because policy should be adapted to specific conditions.

Currently, the right has tons of guns and the left doesn't. Try to confiscate the right's guns and you'll probably have a civil war on your hands. So either add restrictions for new purchases, which locks in the current situation of only the right being armed, or don't, and leave open the possibility of the left getting armed. So, better to have easy access to guns.

I'm going throw something out there. Should people who own firearms be required to have some kind of insurance (like car or home owners) on case of accidents or theft? Also I'm in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

I think that people should be able to have guns to defend themselves. I also think that, in almost all circumstances, people should not use guns to defend themselves.

I think all guns oughta be allowed, but certain calibres should require registration with an official state militia. Granted, I also think we oughta have those too besides just the state and national guards; but I like redundancy.

U.S.

If police were the honest, fair, law-abiding heroes they’re presented as, this would be a much simpler question.

Ideally, I’d choose to replace the police (not merely slap an “under new management” banner on the police station) with a MUCH more transparent and just organization that genuinely serves and protects the public.

I also don’t think there’s enough of an emphasis on safety regarding public ownership of guns. All laws need to be tightened, standardized between states, and loopholes need to be firmly closed. I know we Americans have been taught that gun ownership is an important constitutional right, but I think that in 250 years, guns have proven to do much more harm than good. Decisions on gun laws need to make public safety their primary consideration.

I am from planet earth and I've observed human behavior long enough to know i would never disarm. You sick fucks are to never be trusted.

I think the right to have a gun should also include the legal requirement to take and pass a tactical shoot course. No point in having a gun if one can't hit their target in a stressful situation. Paper target shooting isn't good enough.

American, white, liberal, redneck gun nut here. If you're talking about "defund the police", that's yet another idiot liberal slogan that misses the mark. The idea is to take police funds and pay for workers who can handle situations police should never have been sent to. Want to kill yourself? Call the cops!

The far right loves cops because cops are on their side, or are perceived to be. To put it bluntly, guns are for shooting marauding black people, not white people. See all the stories about white people being shocked when law enforcement doesn't go their way? Yeah.

Also, I suspect people who are anti-gun have never had violence inflicted upon them, or cops who are far away, or haven't had a bear wander in the dog door, or haven't had an enraged redneck struggling to be polite because they're visibly armed. In related news, my MAGA neighbor came stomping down here to kick my ass, turned right the fuck around when I went inside for my .45.

I could write all night on the subject, but let me leave it at this: Now is not the fucking time for Americans to disarm themselves. The only reason fascists haven't run us completely over is that they know there will be a real chance we'll fucking kill them. Look where the ICE raids are happening, in the places where guns are the most suppressed.

Yes, this all sucks, but it's where we're at in America.

US

Our gun laws are a patchwork of really dumb state and federal laws and regulations that often don't make much sense and there is little consistency. I think we pretty much need to go back to square one with basic shit like defining what constitutes a "firearm" and go from there.

I have a lot of thoughts on this and I'm not going to write them all out here right now, because it would get really lengthy and I just don't feel like it right now (if there's interest in hearing what this random internet stranger has to say I may write it up later)

But in general I think that people should be able to own guns, but I also think that there should be a lot of hoops to jump through to get them, background checks, proficiency tests, education , training, insurance, psychological evaluations, storage requirements, etc.

I am pro gun owner ship... But I don't own a gun due to liability risk being higher than my need to have one. I lived in more rural location that calculus would change.

But American gun culture is pathetic anf thats the root cause of the issues we have with guns. Mouth breathers cos playing operators

I'm not against gun ownership, but it needs to be regulated.

Compare it to your car. You need to prove your ability with a test, carry your license with you, register your vehicle, and in some places, it must pass an annual safety inspection. We do all this just to get to work and back, but I can stop at one of many stores within 10 miles of my house and buy armfuls of military hardware designed to do nothing but kill.

Handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles are all you need. Small magazines, no burst or fully automatics. Everything gets registered.

Some extra context: There are a LOT of areas in the US that are rural enough that wildlife is a serious threat, and hunting is a sustainable option for meat. It makes no sense to tell those people they can't have one.

US

People in cities should not use guns for self protection, but should also not rely on the police. Instead, less lethal options should be used for self defense like pepper spray, lasers, or maybe rubber bullets. In the vast majority of cases, densely populated areas will have other people close enough that resisting will discourage continued violence if a commotion is started, just because of possible witnesses.

In rural areas people choosing to use guns they have for hunting for the occasional threat is fine because distances are much further and there is nobody nearby to come and scare off someone by being a witness.

The settings are different and have different needs.

As far abolishing the police, the idea is that the current antagonistic police forces are so broken and do so many things that they need to be replaced with something else. Traffic enforcement shouldn't be the same force that deescalates violent situations which shouldn't be the same force that responds to people in distress. Having the same people respond to all situations where there is a tiny possibility of violence after being taught to treat everyone as a threat is why we get police rolling up and shooting people in mental crisis, breaking into people's homes and shooting dogs over some weed, and shooting drivers who are trying to comply with their confusingly shouted 'instructions'.

Long guns and hunting weapons sure. I'd ban everything else with heavy prison terms for illegal firearms.

With frequent mass school shootings I would think the only defensible position would be to be for as much gun restrictions as possible, otherwise you'd have to defend a necessary condition to allowing mass shootings to continue.

Absent that condition I think people should be allowed to do what they want without fucking up everybody else.

US / PNW

People who have not committed violent crimes should have the right to own and purchase any firearm. From my point of view, the NFA is a violation of individuals’ rights and should be abolished. The concept of a concealed carry permit, permit to purchase, “gun free zone”, or firearm licensing / registration are a violation of peoples’ rights. Firearm function and safety should be taught in schools again, including safe storage. Failure to follow firearm safety or safe storage resulting in bodily harm ought to be a criminal offense with heavy consequences, especially in cases that result in death.

Policing in the US is in dire need of reform. “Qualified Immunity” needs to end. Officers ought to be held to higher standards than the rest of the population, which includes using their judgment for appropriate levels of force and facing consequences for excessive force. Murderers do not get paid administrative leave or a new job in the next state, they get a trial by jury. Use of deadly force in self defense against an officer of the law ought to be justifiable after being tried in court. Traffic enforcement, response to mental health crises, response to domestic disputes, and response to reports of threats/violence require separate skillsets and should be handled by separate teams with their own training and qualifications.

I'm strictly anti-gun, as I believe are most Europeans. Civilians shouldn't be allowed to keep ranged weapons, period.

i can't just trust people holding guns. but yeah, i don't trust cops either. (i'm not american)

Every man for themselves, free-for-all, no resurrections.

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.

Tell me you're from the US without telling me you're from the US.

Let's have a hypothetical scenario, imagine there was a machine that could be used to murder people easily, even if that wasn't their main purpose anyone could use it in a fit of rage to kill someone, in fact anyone could kill someone by accident with this machine. You would want this machine to be regulated, have people evaluated psychologically, and have them take classes and perform an exam to ensure they won't kill anyone by accident.

Did you think guns? I meant cars. And asking if no one or only cops should have guns is like asking if no one or only bus drivers should be able to drive. There's a midterm that most of the world has already reached, where we require people to go through some process to prove they can operate the death machine safely.

Neither this nor that. Your options are too simplistic.

Of course, police needs guns.

Some civilians need guns, too. But not many. They should be able to get them, but they have to prove their need. It needs rules set up in advance to define what kind of needs qualify for getting guns. And then it needs laws against gun abuse.

In addition, soldiers need guns. They even need weapons that are much stronger. So there must be boundaries between several kinds of weapons, and normal people cannot get all kinds. And there must be boundaries between what police can do and what soldiers can do. For example, soldiers must never go against civilians, and nobody has the right to order them so, and they can never get punished for denying such an order.

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.

Absolutely, why should only some people be afforded a right.

Criminals will be criminals, take guns away and they start running cars through crowds.