this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
64 points (97.1% liked)
Asklemmy
53800 readers
622 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My comment was referring to the fact that it is difficult if not impossible for governments to restrict a civilian's access to effective lethal weapons. Legally, a government does maintain a monopoly on violence, and they can attempt to continue restricting the civilian's access, but the continued development of technology is eroding the barrier of entry for effective weapons.
I understand it's not a department or office lol, what I'm saying is any average joe now has the ability to download a single file off the internet and assemble a functional, reliable firearm with no prior experience. Or manufacture effective fragmentation IEDs. Or 3D print a lethal drone that can be controlled with a phone or a portable game console. With those developments, no population can be fully or effectively disarmed - so governments must accept that the population can be armed regardless of their wishes, and can disrupt the monopoly at any time.