3 ms·

What do you mean? Name 'countless locales' without guns. The only one that comes to mind are things like freight ships preferring water cannons over guns. There

What do you mean? Name 'countless locales' without guns. The only one that comes to mind are things like freight ships preferring water cannons over guns. There's also countless of examples where not having apropriate self defence is a death sentence to a culture, country or person living in a dangerous area

janice1999 2y ago
Not OP by there are 18 countries that have mostly unarmed police forces [1]. I live in one of them - Ireland. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-do-not-carry-guns.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-d...
- Dig1t 2y ago
  Maybe the patrol cops, but your rulers still keep heavily armed SWAT teams ready to be deployed in case the patrol cops encounter real resistance. Every country, including democracies, have deployed surveillance against their own people. Giving your rulers, and big companies, exclusive access to this technology is just asking for an authoritarian nightmare.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    > Giving your populace easy, uncontrolled access to this technology is actually causing rampant shootings. Notice how one is “just asking” for a hypothetical risk while the other is an everyday fact of life. The relationship between availability of guns and the amount of gun violence is extremely well-established. I personally am sympathetic to the view that an armed population is a meaningful deterrent against tyranny, but it’s hard to compare a hypothetical to a growing number of deaths. And the odd fact that firearms’ primary political role in our society is to intimidate people while voting doesn’t help either.
    - Out_of_Characte 2y ago
      >The relationship between availability of guns and the amount of gun violence is extremely well-established. Its also hard to prove which causes which. In some capacity, violence itself necessitates guns. Both statements could also be true at the same time. or playing the devils advocate, the increase in violence causes higher gun ownership, but once the ownership is there, reducing violence might not reduce gun violence itself.
vunderba 2y ago
I don't think there are many places where there is a complete absence of guns, but there are plenty of countries where gun ownership among civilians is outright banned. Japan comes to mind - and the gun related crime statistics seem to back up the fact that even criminals can't really get their hands on one.

janice1999 2y ago

Not OP by there are 18 countries that have mostly unarmed police forces [1]. I live in one of them - Ireland. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-do-not-carry-guns.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-d...

Dig1t 2y ago
Maybe the patrol cops, but your rulers still keep heavily armed SWAT teams ready to be deployed in case the patrol cops encounter real resistance. Every country, including democracies, have deployed surveillance against their own people. Giving your rulers, and big companies, exclusive access to this technology is just asking for an authoritarian nightmare.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > Giving your populace easy, uncontrolled access to this technology is actually causing rampant shootings. Notice how one is “just asking” for a hypothetical risk while the other is an everyday fact of life. The relationship between availability of guns and the amount of gun violence is extremely well-established. I personally am sympathetic to the view that an armed population is a meaningful deterrent against tyranny, but it’s hard to compare a hypothetical to a growing number of deaths. And the odd fact that firearms’ primary political role in our society is to intimidate people while voting doesn’t help either.
  - Out_of_Characte 2y ago
    >The relationship between availability of guns and the amount of gun violence is extremely well-established. Its also hard to prove which causes which. In some capacity, violence itself necessitates guns. Both statements could also be true at the same time. or playing the devils advocate, the increase in violence causes higher gun ownership, but once the ownership is there, reducing violence might not reduce gun violence itself.

vunderba 2y ago

I don't think there are many places where there is a complete absence of guns, but there are plenty of countries where gun ownership among civilians is outright banned. Japan comes to mind - and the gun related crime statistics seem to back up the fact that even criminals can't really get their hands on one.