Not looking for another debate, I was simply curious how opinion here on the SDMB breaks down. Do you think that restricting guns, even if overall better for society, admittedly has some downside to it?
Defensive gun use can prevent crime, but I don’t know how much of it that it prevents.
That’s about it.
Only downside is that some people in places like rural Alaska (perhaps 3 hours away from police) would have no means of self defense.
Also such a crackdown MUST involve taking guns away from criminals, not just law-abiding citizenry.
Doesn’t it depend on what the restrictions are?
Indeed. I don’t hear too many people advocating for prohibiting Americans from keeping a handgun in their home for self defense or owning a rifle or shotgun for the hunting.
(actually, I don’t hear *anyone *advocating for restrictions like that, but I’m sure someone somewhere has proposed it)
I chose other because all the other choices don’t make sense without more details at best (the bottom couple of choices) or are just fucking idioticly insane at worst (the top few choices.)
The biggest one is just how many more poor people will get thrown in prison. You already see it happening with stop and frisk policies.
“No means of self defense”? So they couldn’t even raise their arms to stop a punch?
Yeah, it’s “what restrictions” that makes the difference to me in considering cost/benefit. I see no objection to it being a PITA for some Joe Blow with $50K to spare to buy himself a .50-cal M2. OTOH there’s that earlier mentioned homeowner in a sparsely policed location, or in a high risk neighborhood, who I would not mind being able to protect herself and her family with a Glock, having trained on how to use it. The range in between is broad.
Or a board with a nail in it.
In Alaska we might be speaking of Polar Bears, which require a very, very big gun.
On the home front, if the guys who were walking through the city a couple of years ago with a sawn off 12 gauge, attacking people on their porch and forcing their way into homes come after me, I would like to be able to shoot them.
Pretty obviously, “What restrictions?” means a set of restrictions you’d approve. Everybody is opposed to bad restrictions. So, instead of the cop-out, just imagine what you would consider fair restrictions, and answer the poll.
Or a door?
Igloos don’t have doors!
It seems to have worked in South Korea and Australia.
The title says “restricting”, but the poll includes options about banning.
I answered assuming the OP wasn’t trying for a bait-and-switch, and went with my opinion on just restrictions, so voted “No repercussions worth considering”.
Outright banning of all private ownership being the actual option under consideration would shift my vote to “A few, but overall restricting guns is for the better”.
I’m Australian. Restricting gun ownership here has had no downside that I can see. Farmers, hunters and sport-shooters are still able to legally buy and own guns. The rest of the populace needs a damned good reason why they should be entitled.
Same in UK. It was interesting for me reading Procustus’s comment upthread:
There’s a sharp cultural difference for me here.We simply don’t have the concept that owning a gun for self defence is remotely acceptable. Sport, hunting, farmers, great. General populace waving a hand gun around thinking they can fend off a burglar, not bloody likely.
I guess it’s the concept that guns should only be in the hands of people who know what they are doing, and in controlled circumstances. Not taking pot shots out of their bedroom window.
The biggest downside is that millions of American men will no longer have a way to display their manhood.
They could always buy a bigger pickup truck.