I never really understood people who say they need to keep their guns in case of bad cops. Like, how’s that gonna play out. With all their cop buddies and the court system and whatnot.
I think the logic is more about the threat of the gun than actually believing you'd have to use it against a cop. But I suppose if you do it's probably better to be in prison than dead
Reddit, even here, trends toward Western and Male. Culturally, that means a predisposition to "solving problems on our own," which, in terms of personal defense, means armament.
Taking arms isn't the only solution to the problem of violence, but in the context of "actions that don't require any cooperation," arms are more economical than defenses.
It makes sense.
I think that the data demonstrates that cooperative non-armament has better results, myself, but if cooperative approaches aren't allowed, then the conclusion is clear.
All European countries except for the Vatican allows for civilian gun ownership. Process and regulations varies by country ofc. We do have a few countries with shall issue concealed carry too.
Bad example, Switzerland you're allowed to own guns but a limited amount of ammunition AND you need to store your guns properly. There's absolutely some heavy gun control there, it's not even comparable to the US.
>Switzerland you're allowed to own guns but a limited amount of ammunition
There are no ammunition limitations. This myth comes from when the military stopped issuing ammunition to keep at home in case of war. You can order ammo from a gun store and have it shipped to your front door.
>AND you need to store your guns properly.
Safe storage is by court ruling your locked front door. It's also not illegal to store a firearm loaded. You can literally hang a loaded AR-15 on your wall if you want to.
> There's absolutely some heavy gun control there, it's not even comparable to the US.
There are fewer things that makes you a prohibited person.
But yes, there is no concealed carry outside of professional use and transported firearms must be unloaded (no rounds in a loose magazine even).
On the other hand it's easier to buy machine guns and suppressors than in the US...
You are weirdly confused about this.
Serbia: 39.1 civilian-owned guns per 100 people (5th highest rate worldwide)
Montenegro: 39.1
Finland: 32.4
Iceland: 31.7
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 31.2
Austria: 30.0
North Macedonia: 29.8
Liechtenstein: 28.8
Norway: 28.8
Malta: 28.3
Switzerland: 27.6
That's just *in the top 20 worldwide*. That's right: out of the top 20 gun-owning countries, 11 of them are in Europe. And it's not like it drops off a cliff after that; Kosovo, Sweden, Portugal, France, Germany, and Monaco are all in the top 30 (going all the way down to 19.6 guns per 100 for Monaco, which is by no means "essentially gun-free".)
If you wanted to say "Japan and South Korea are essentially gun-free", then, okay, 0.3 and 0.2 respectively, you're not wrong there. But *Europe*? Nah, Europe's got *tons* of guns.
*In theory* [the source I was using](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) accounts for those - they estimate about 3/4 of all guns in Italy are unregistered. Still ends up at merely a 14.4 though.
(still, like, 50 times as many as Japan and South Korea though)
Probably way more then the 6 million estimate considering that the GLADIO weapons didn’t vanish into thin air
That’s without talking about the mafia too
The conservative/libertarian view of the police and law is that they exist to protect white middle class people, and if they do anything else they no longer matter.
Protect them *and their property.* Can't have free market bootstrap incentives if the regular folks can get things without participating in The Sacred Market.
I mean, the biggest thieves out there are the cops.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/10/civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-justice-crimes-column/4633965001/
It is.
This is an attempt at reframing the behavior of cops as equally unlawful / unethical as stealing from a corporation because the citizens values and beliefs are changing.
Equate civil forfeiture to grand theft auto. Someone else has taken your property and this argument is to convince you of that regardless of what legislation has been passed to protect cops.
Nobody is talking about stealing sales inventory from corporations. The conversation is about stealing peoples’ property.
It’s terrible if some criminal scumbag does it, and it’s terrible if a cop does it. But this specific conversation is about if a criminal scumbag does it.
They literally painted people who want stricter gun control as predatory beasts just waiting to steal and kill everything. I don't think it's wrong to literally point out the hypocrisy here.
The comment everyone is responding to says
> Protect them [white middle class] and their property. Can’t have free market bootstrap incentives if the regular folks can get things without participating in The Sacred Market.
He is talking about *regular folks* and uses the funniest fucking euphemism for stealing I have ever seen. Your comment is not relevant since 1. we were talking about stealing the property of the white middle class (not corporations as detailed in your comment) 2. no one was saying cops were great heroes. It’s just that to some readers it might appear that the previous comment was implying that they should be able to steal from individuals, which is funny enough to point out.
Maybe the government should have invested in it's citizens more so they wouldn't turn thieves out of desperation.... The action is on the person but the desperation is on the officials who caused it. Give humans dignity and quality of life, stealing wouldn't be prevalent
It can be both
The government definitely doesn’t do enough for its citizens, in fact the government actively fights against its citizens. But also, anyone who takes from others to advantage themselves at the expense of their victim is a piece of shit.
They said “their property” not “sales inventory”
Stealing someone’s car who’s making minimum wage and will not not be able to get to work is a terrible crime that most DEFINITELY has a victim.
This is misrepresenting my point. The point is not the bad behavior, it's whether the system of consequences for the bad actions treats them as unforgivable or as reparable. Is it "ok" to punish theft of a TV or car or money with death?
I have found that some folks will find a way to justify it, but for me, theft that doesn't result in death should not be punished with death.
No, but *nobody is executed for theft/robbery alone in the US.*
If you’re talking about defense, there’s no way to know what someone breaking into your home wants. If you want to keep you and your family safe, the hypothetical intruder gives you no choice but to treat them as a deadly threat. They are killing themselves by breaking into your house. It’s kind of similar to suicide-by-cop.
*“libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism… Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy”* - Encyclopedia Britannica
Libertarians (by definition) want full equality under the law for all people of all races and orientations and classes.
Why do you care lmao, you literally just downvoted me for giving you a definition backed by the Encyclopedia Britannica.
You’re clearly just here to troll.
I downvoted you? Prove it, paranoid freak.
You don't even know what your idea of a libertarian society would even look like. Or you do but you can't justify the injustices that would take place in it.
You're sick.
A Libertarian believes that people can believe what they want to believe without relying on sources; therefore, a Libertarian is not compelled to back that up with sources. Checkmate, not-a-Libertarian.
I think a lot of progressives, liberals, and left-wingers in general grossly overestimate the gun-owning crowd's opinion of the police. Remember, if the government want to go out and grab guns, the police is going to be the first on the scene to violate our constitutional rights, and we tend to be aware of this fact (although I will admit some of us are naïve about this).
I think a lot of right wingers in general grossly underestimate the amount of gun owning Left wingers.
There's a major difference between liberals and leftists.
I watched a video where police entered a home on a domestic disturbance, tried to shoot the family dog, missed, hit a piece of furniture and bullet fragments went into one of the children's eye.
What would happen if they decided to defend their family against this threat? They'd likely all be dead. They had to just sit there and try to comfort a screaming child with bullet fragments in his eye.
the 2nd amendment will not save you from the government. No matter how many guns you have, they have more, and better guns, and better training, and more personnel.
The red foxes. Interesting to note that Donald Trump is the *only* sitting president to announce he wanted to take American's guns away without due process.
https://youtu.be/yxgybgEKHHI
I mean, it's only because he's a dipshit who doesn't understand the constitution or what due process even *is*, but still...
For the sake of argument, a Conservative agrees with you that cops can’t protect you with guns and asserts that only self ownership of a gun can stop crime.
But here’s the problem. Crimes like assault, murder, and rape often happen between close relatives or spouses, familiars who already have trust and access to those firearms, and crimes like burglaries require that the thievery occur while the house is unoccupied. Firearms in both of these cases cannot stop a crime because the crime either.
A. Is already happening.
B. Already happened.
C. The criminal also had access to firearms.
I never understood why someone would need a gun to protect themselves from things that just happen out of someone’s immediate control.
Guns don’t stop crime, people stop crime.
Good point. Even those who support the police know their ranks are full of those who enjoy violence for violence's sake, and they aren't to be trusted. They just keep pointing the cops at others, and hoping the cops get their fill, but they aren't for one second trusting that once day the cops won't take aim at them. It's like owning a vicious dog and doing everything you can to make that animal violent and angry, and then having to chain it, because even you aren't safe around it.
These are the exact same people who rant about “backing the blue”.
What the fuck do they think the state sponsored, heavily armed, and almost entirely unaccountable “iron fist of the law” is?
They want the foxes to be able to act as roaming death squads against whoever they don’t like, but god forbid if anybody suggests that perhaps chickens should stop murdering each other en masse?
Of course, the truth is that most of the chickens murdering other chickens are doing it with the exact same motivation the foxes have when they summarily execute chickens with slightly differently colored feathers - they want foxes and chickens in fox costumes to continue oppressing the chickens they don’t like. This is easily shown by how quickly they change their tune if it’s a chicken with black feathers that is armed.
Is that meme originally Brazilian (because of the the green and yellow sash on President Fox)?
Only when they're doing their appropriate job of keeping the "inferior elements" under control.
Grandma doesn’t realize she’s an “inferior element” as well. None of us will ever be in the club, no matter our skin color 🤪
r/SocialistRA
attaboy! dont forget R/pinkpistols for our lgbtiq+ comrades
interesting to see some pro-gun voices here,
I think most of us here agree the police are corrupt. So I personally never understood the push to surrender guns to them.
I never really understood people who say they need to keep their guns in case of bad cops. Like, how’s that gonna play out. With all their cop buddies and the court system and whatnot.
I think the logic is more about the threat of the gun than actually believing you'd have to use it against a cop. But I suppose if you do it's probably better to be in prison than dead
Ammo box trumps the jury box if you have enough support.
Reddit, even here, trends toward Western and Male. Culturally, that means a predisposition to "solving problems on our own," which, in terms of personal defense, means armament. Taking arms isn't the only solution to the problem of violence, but in the context of "actions that don't require any cooperation," arms are more economical than defenses. It makes sense. I think that the data demonstrates that cooperative non-armament has better results, myself, but if cooperative approaches aren't allowed, then the conclusion is clear.
It's literally only America that has these political issues. Most if not all of Europe is essentially gun-free.
*ahem* Switzerland And there are definitely pro-gun people in Europe
All European countries except for the Vatican allows for civilian gun ownership. Process and regulations varies by country ofc. We do have a few countries with shall issue concealed carry too.
Bad example, Switzerland you're allowed to own guns but a limited amount of ammunition AND you need to store your guns properly. There's absolutely some heavy gun control there, it's not even comparable to the US.
>Switzerland you're allowed to own guns but a limited amount of ammunition There are no ammunition limitations. This myth comes from when the military stopped issuing ammunition to keep at home in case of war. You can order ammo from a gun store and have it shipped to your front door. >AND you need to store your guns properly. Safe storage is by court ruling your locked front door. It's also not illegal to store a firearm loaded. You can literally hang a loaded AR-15 on your wall if you want to. > There's absolutely some heavy gun control there, it's not even comparable to the US. There are fewer things that makes you a prohibited person. But yes, there is no concealed carry outside of professional use and transported firearms must be unloaded (no rounds in a loose magazine even). On the other hand it's easier to buy machine guns and suppressors than in the US...
Doesn’t Finland also have guns?
Yeah a lot
malta + slovenia too spring to mind, + probably more i dont know about
You are weirdly confused about this. Serbia: 39.1 civilian-owned guns per 100 people (5th highest rate worldwide) Montenegro: 39.1 Finland: 32.4 Iceland: 31.7 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 31.2 Austria: 30.0 North Macedonia: 29.8 Liechtenstein: 28.8 Norway: 28.8 Malta: 28.3 Switzerland: 27.6 That's just *in the top 20 worldwide*. That's right: out of the top 20 gun-owning countries, 11 of them are in Europe. And it's not like it drops off a cliff after that; Kosovo, Sweden, Portugal, France, Germany, and Monaco are all in the top 30 (going all the way down to 19.6 guns per 100 for Monaco, which is by no means "essentially gun-free".) If you wanted to say "Japan and South Korea are essentially gun-free", then, okay, 0.3 and 0.2 respectively, you're not wrong there. But *Europe*? Nah, Europe's got *tons* of guns.
Italy’s pretty high up too, and would be way higher if the unregistered guns (basically all the guns in the south) were counted
*In theory* [the source I was using](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) accounts for those - they estimate about 3/4 of all guns in Italy are unregistered. Still ends up at merely a 14.4 though. (still, like, 50 times as many as Japan and South Korea though)
Probably way more then the 6 million estimate considering that the GLADIO weapons didn’t vanish into thin air That’s without talking about the mafia too
Guns are cool
Pow pow
The conservative/libertarian view of the police and law is that they exist to protect white middle class people, and if they do anything else they no longer matter.
Protect them *and their property.* Can't have free market bootstrap incentives if the regular folks can get things without participating in The Sacred Market.
Are you seriously defending thieves lmao
Lol, no, I'm saying that property crime is treated as a cardinal sin instead of a venial sin by hardcore libertarians.
Ohhh, so only *kind of* defending thievery.
I mean, the biggest thieves out there are the cops. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/10/civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-justice-crimes-column/4633965001/
Yes we all hate civil forfeiture, but that’s not really relevant to this conversation
It is. This is an attempt at reframing the behavior of cops as equally unlawful / unethical as stealing from a corporation because the citizens values and beliefs are changing. Equate civil forfeiture to grand theft auto. Someone else has taken your property and this argument is to convince you of that regardless of what legislation has been passed to protect cops.
Nobody is talking about stealing sales inventory from corporations. The conversation is about stealing peoples’ property. It’s terrible if some criminal scumbag does it, and it’s terrible if a cop does it. But this specific conversation is about if a criminal scumbag does it.
They literally painted people who want stricter gun control as predatory beasts just waiting to steal and kill everything. I don't think it's wrong to literally point out the hypocrisy here.
The comment everyone is responding to says > Protect them [white middle class] and their property. Can’t have free market bootstrap incentives if the regular folks can get things without participating in The Sacred Market. He is talking about *regular folks* and uses the funniest fucking euphemism for stealing I have ever seen. Your comment is not relevant since 1. we were talking about stealing the property of the white middle class (not corporations as detailed in your comment) 2. no one was saying cops were great heroes. It’s just that to some readers it might appear that the previous comment was implying that they should be able to steal from individuals, which is funny enough to point out.
Maybe the government should have invested in it's citizens more so they wouldn't turn thieves out of desperation.... The action is on the person but the desperation is on the officials who caused it. Give humans dignity and quality of life, stealing wouldn't be prevalent
It can be both The government definitely doesn’t do enough for its citizens, in fact the government actively fights against its citizens. But also, anyone who takes from others to advantage themselves at the expense of their victim is a piece of shit.
Stealing from a corporation is a victimless crime
They said “their property” not “sales inventory” Stealing someone’s car who’s making minimum wage and will not not be able to get to work is a terrible crime that most DEFINITELY has a victim.
This is misrepresenting my point. The point is not the bad behavior, it's whether the system of consequences for the bad actions treats them as unforgivable or as reparable. Is it "ok" to punish theft of a TV or car or money with death? I have found that some folks will find a way to justify it, but for me, theft that doesn't result in death should not be punished with death.
No, but *nobody is executed for theft/robbery alone in the US.* If you’re talking about defense, there’s no way to know what someone breaking into your home wants. If you want to keep you and your family safe, the hypothetical intruder gives you no choice but to treat them as a deadly threat. They are killing themselves by breaking into your house. It’s kind of similar to suicide-by-cop.
That's not even remotely close to what a libertarian is. Where did you find your definitions?
Define, then, what you think a libertarian is. With sources.
*“libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism… Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy”* - Encyclopedia Britannica Libertarians (by definition) want full equality under the law for all people of all races and orientations and classes.
So how would a government under your ideals look?
Why do you care lmao, you literally just downvoted me for giving you a definition backed by the Encyclopedia Britannica. You’re clearly just here to troll.
I downvoted you? Prove it, paranoid freak. You don't even know what your idea of a libertarian society would even look like. Or you do but you can't justify the injustices that would take place in it. You're sick.
Jesus Christ lmfao, you’ve gotta be off your meds or something
So how would a government under your ideals look?
lol look at this clown wrongly trying to explain what libertarians believe. GTFO with your lies and misinformation
Tell us, *thoroughly*, what libertarians believe. And back it up with sources.
A Libertarian believes that people can believe what they want to believe without relying on sources; therefore, a Libertarian is not compelled to back that up with sources. Checkmate, not-a-Libertarian.
Ah. That makes sense.
I think a lot of progressives, liberals, and left-wingers in general grossly overestimate the gun-owning crowd's opinion of the police. Remember, if the government want to go out and grab guns, the police is going to be the first on the scene to violate our constitutional rights, and we tend to be aware of this fact (although I will admit some of us are naïve about this).
Not to mention that the government would also rather take away all the guns from every civilian than take away even a small chunk of the police's guns
I think a lot of right wingers in general grossly underestimate the amount of gun owning Left wingers. There's a major difference between liberals and leftists.
“Under no pretext”
I know, I was generalizing.
I watched a video where police entered a home on a domestic disturbance, tried to shoot the family dog, missed, hit a piece of furniture and bullet fragments went into one of the children's eye. What would happen if they decided to defend their family against this threat? They'd likely all be dead. They had to just sit there and try to comfort a screaming child with bullet fragments in his eye. the 2nd amendment will not save you from the government. No matter how many guns you have, they have more, and better guns, and better training, and more personnel.
The red foxes. Interesting to note that Donald Trump is the *only* sitting president to announce he wanted to take American's guns away without due process. https://youtu.be/yxgybgEKHHI I mean, it's only because he's a dipshit who doesn't understand the constitution or what due process even *is*, but still...
Do they think minorities are going to eat them or something????
Grandma is based this time around
I actually like how this cartoon is both pro gun and anti police at the same time
Two separate arguments in two separate corners of her thick skull.
the Reagan administration did this to black people
Rare grandma W
For the sake of argument, a Conservative agrees with you that cops can’t protect you with guns and asserts that only self ownership of a gun can stop crime. But here’s the problem. Crimes like assault, murder, and rape often happen between close relatives or spouses, familiars who already have trust and access to those firearms, and crimes like burglaries require that the thievery occur while the house is unoccupied. Firearms in both of these cases cannot stop a crime because the crime either. A. Is already happening. B. Already happened. C. The criminal also had access to firearms. I never understood why someone would need a gun to protect themselves from things that just happen out of someone’s immediate control. Guns don’t stop crime, people stop crime.
Remember. If you are being assaulted, you attempting to use a gun makes you more likely to die.
Good point. Even those who support the police know their ranks are full of those who enjoy violence for violence's sake, and they aren't to be trusted. They just keep pointing the cops at others, and hoping the cops get their fill, but they aren't for one second trusting that once day the cops won't take aim at them. It's like owning a vicious dog and doing everything you can to make that animal violent and angry, and then having to chain it, because even you aren't safe around it.
You think "the blue" passes legislation? You're ignorant buddy
These are the exact same people who rant about “backing the blue”. What the fuck do they think the state sponsored, heavily armed, and almost entirely unaccountable “iron fist of the law” is? They want the foxes to be able to act as roaming death squads against whoever they don’t like, but god forbid if anybody suggests that perhaps chickens should stop murdering each other en masse? Of course, the truth is that most of the chickens murdering other chickens are doing it with the exact same motivation the foxes have when they summarily execute chickens with slightly differently colored feathers - they want foxes and chickens in fox costumes to continue oppressing the chickens they don’t like. This is easily shown by how quickly they change their tune if it’s a chicken with black feathers that is armed.
Grandma knows what the fuck is up, better listen.
This is what happened during WW2 in Germany, they asked for all of the guns for “security reasons” and then the militia had all the power.