Definitely as is vs none. There are people that actually NEED guns to exist in their day to day lives. People that trap for a living as an example. I also wouldn’t want people checking lines in Prudhoe Bay to not have guns to help prevent bear attacks. Farmers don’t necessarily NEED them for varmint control, but you’re seriously crippling them if you deny them at least a shotgun. I chose not to vote as well. The dichotomy is too stark. I think that Hong Kong is the only ‘country’ in the world with a complete firearms ban although many others are extremely strict in who gets them (Although I’m not sure about North Korea- do we even know their laws?) I definitely think we need to have much stronger gun control, but banning seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Of course it’s a ridiculous setup, but I voted no private gun ownership.
That’s of course because I grew up in a culture where gun ownership exists, but for very limited purposes, and limitations varying depending on the purpose.
In Norway you can own a gun for hunting, but you need a hunting license. You can own a gun for target shooting, but you need to be a member of a registered gun club. You can own guns as collectibles, but you need special permission from the police authorities.
There are also some special rules for police and military officers.
And in all cases when not in use or on a hunting trip the gun or a vital part has to be locked up.
In contrast with the US today I personally would prefer if all hunting weapons were owned by a licensed hunting organisation, if target practice weapons were owned by licensed shooting clubs, and so on and so forth.
I went for the status quo because like a lot of things in firearms it comes down to: how do you define a gun? Is my antique flintlock a gun? I can, and do, hunt with it after all. How about reproductions? How about other muzzle-loaders from matchlocks (which I have owned) to field pieces and mortars (which I currently own)? And if we’re talking just “modern guns” it doesn’t get any better. Do we consider a trap-door Springfield as equal to an AR-15?
Two quick points/personal experiences:
I was close friends many years back with a Pittsburgh mayor when he proposed an assault weapons ban which did pass some levels of government here. The next time I saw him I partly jokingly thanked him for outlawing my flintlock musket. His response was basically “what you talking about Willis”? I explained that under his law an assault weapon was defined as any shoulder arm designed for use by shock troops, designed for a higher-than-ordinary rate of fire, and able to fix a bayonet. My fusil was exactly that. “Well that isn’t what we mean”. Yeah, I know. But it didn’t make me feel any better about it.
I do not know about today but well into the 80s and I believe 90s all international muzzle-loading shooting competitions were with original antique weapons right down to matchlocks and wheel-locks. I was shooting a flintlock over 200 years old and a couple caplocks well over 100 and I actually got to fire some weapons over 400 years old. This was done to keep a level playing field as in many countries with bans, or severe restrictions, ownership of a reproduction muzzle-loader was treated the same as ownership of modern hunting and target arms. The only way to keep everything fair was to do it basically with privately owned museum pieces. And even there it was tough. A friend in Austria had to keep his caps and powder with the local police and account for every practice shot he took. Imagine saving every busted cap to prove you weren’t hording some at home. I am told things are a little more open now there but I don’t know about Japan or other places.
The ‘no gun’ answer is too mind bendingly unrealistic to vote for. ‘Everything the same except that’ is self contradictory. Important things could not be the same and still have that happen. The question even in the most hypothetical case would have to be ‘would you rather live in the very different US society where this would be possible’ and in that case more clearly, to me, ‘no’. As in the OP disclaimer, that’s not a comment about politically realistic changes to gun laws, that are realistically enforceable in US society as it actually is (the second part often gets left out, sometimes by the same people who say to change, or ignore, drug or immigration laws because the current ones aren’t enforceable).
As sometimes happens, the wording of the poll options, and the text of the OP, are asking two different things. And some of us are responding to one, some to the other.
The poll choices talk about gun ownership being permitted. But the OP talks about “any private citizens (whereby good citizen or crook) having any guns at all.” That’s a hypothetical that would require magic, or at least something more radical than just a ban, to actually realize in the world we actually live in.
As long as guns exist, I think you have to allow for private ownership. Would we be better off, though, if Thanos snapped his fingers and every gun in the world disappeared? Without a doubt. But since that can’t happen, I think some form of private ownership is necessary.
What’s the situation in Australia? They’ve got a gun ban and large swathes of rural area that some posters feel require guns.
You can have a gun in Australia with a permit, and one of the valid reasons for getting one is being in rural Australia. I know shotguns and rifles are permitted and I think even some handguns in very specific circumstances and with a lot of red tape. I’ve heard it’s not even that hard to get one, if you have a valid reason to own one.
Both options suck.
I think you should be able to own a shotgun for deer hunting or killing pheasants or grouse or whatever. I used to work for a company that had “deer Monday” off - I know what a big deal hunting is. So even in a perfect world, I wouldn’t get rid of all private ownership of guns.
I’m not opposed to gun ownership for stable law-abiding citizens. Therefore, I cannot vote for option 2. But as others have said, with such a black and white divide between the choices, it doesn’t accurately reflect my views. You would have to be blind not to see our current system isn’t working. I would favor a limit to handguns and hunting rifles for personal ownership and a cap on the number of guns. Military style weapons should be limited to gun ranges or barring that, an advanced licensing system to vet people who really want such a weapon.
Like others said, this is a terrible poll.
Re: hunting – my brother-in-law used to hunt deer and elk with bow and arrow. Mainly he did it because he got to start earlier than the gun hunters, but also he liked it because it was more peaceful. In addition to all the other benefits of no private guns, imagine the great outdoors not marred by bangs and the smell of cordite.
Of course there would still be all the idiots with ATVs and such to make all the noise and smells anyone could want. That would be next on my list of bans.
American military and police have inflicted far more carnage on humanity than private individuals could ever dream of.
And we should only allow them to be armed? Hell no.
I don’t like either option in the poll, but the second option is just completely insane and shows a twisted morality if you ask me.
But private gun ownership is not almost completely illegal in the UK. Unless by “gun” you mean “handgun”. All sorts of farmers and hunters and target shooters own rifles and shotguns. The big difference of course is that you have to jump through some hoops to prove that you’re not a homicidal maniac before they let you own a gun, and you have to show that you have a good reason to own a gun, like being a farmer or hunter, but “for self defense” is not considered a valid reason. And you also have to prove that you’re keeping your guns locked up when not in use, and that you know what you’re doing, and that you’re not a maniac.
I’m not sure that’s true. Guns are equalizers.
If all you have is knives, swords, spears, etc. then the physically strong and skilled can easily oppress the weak or unskilled.
However, when guns enter the equation, an 80 year old grandma in a wheelchair can effectively defend herself against a sword-wielding ninja in his physical prime or another armed foe.
How is the 2nd option “completely insane” if it is in fact quite close to what a number of Western nations do and seem to do fine with?
And while it’s true that the U.S. military has inflicted a large number of deaths, it’s almost all on foreigners on foreign soil (not saying that makes it necessarily good, but rather, that the U.S. military poses little threat to Americans in America.)
As for the “U.S. police inflicting more carnage on humanity than private individuals can dream of” - what…? The Vegas shooting, Orlando shooting, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. were all private individuals, not to mention all the other lower-scale shootings that happen.
I realize that. But I think the exact conditions in the OP are a bit unclear/unrealistic, and the U.K. is probably as close to gun-free as anywhere, and somewhere that Americans could envision living.
What I was interested in is stripping out the “we’re awash with guns so we can’t get rid of them even if we want to” aspect, to see what people’s preferences are in ideal circumstances where you could set up society from scratch.
Perhaps even then the much greater hunting tradition in the U.S. still makes the thought experiment difficult.
I pretty much agree with you, but I’m curious: why do you feel that this is unrealistic? Not only do I think that strict gun control is realistic, I think that it’s inevitable as we truly enter the 21st century and put away the relics of worse times.
Why would you think that the number of people who don’t want any random Joe to have the ability to kill them at a distance would be “vanishingly small”, especially when the number of people who are crazy or fanatic enough to desire to kill random people is NOT “vanishingly small” as we hear about all too often in the news?
Cite?
Cite?
Oh, please. There are many countries that have banned guns. And if guns are “stolen or sold or otherwise transferred, and smuggled in as well” then those guns are illegal, and people who possess them can and should be arrested like the criminals they are. Unlike immigrants from Mexico, people with guns actually pose a threat to us.
I get that, and that’s why if I were passing my own law, you could get a bolt-action, up to five round rifle, for limited purposes. And if that gun is used to break the law, even if it was being used by someone else, unless you reported it stolen, you would be fully liable for any crimes committed by that gun. Even if you DID report it stolen, if you didn’t live up to a very high standard in keeping it safe, you would be fully (or at least partially) liable for any crimes committed.
But if the options are what we have now, or a world where a farmer CAN’T deal with a bear by themselves, and have to call animal control? I would be totally fine with that world. I guarantee you that “farmers killed by bear attacks” will be a much smaller number than “people killed by guns”.
Agreed.
None of those people NEED guns. I would be totally fine with any of those people needing to call the government if a situation when a gun is needed comes up, and asking the government to send men with guns to deal with it, because the truth is, I don’t TRUST these guys (or anyone else) with guns.
Now that doesn’t mean that we need to ban ALL guns. We could also hold people fully accountable for actions committed using their guns. But that would require very strict regulation of guns, which I am 100% fine with, but gun owners apparently are not. So strict regulation > no guns at all > status quo, and if gun owners won’t agree to strict regulation, I have 0 problems with the government taking their guns.
Pretty much this. Although I think it’s only ridiculous because we’ve been conditioned to accept guns as part of our society, which I don’t agree with.
100% agree with this. I think it would solve a lot of our problems, especially if any illegal use of these guns would put the company that owns the gun at full fault, even if the gun was stolen. Suddenly, technologies like fingerprint-locked guns would actually get developed, since they’re only being blocked today by the NRA.
Those are all guns, and (IMHO) as a private citizen you have no valid use for any of them. If you like the way they look, that’s totally fine – you can hang whatever gun you want on your wall, so long as it’s rendered fully non-functional first.
While it’s far from the deadliest weapon out there, at the end of the day, your musket is a tool made for the purpose of killing. As a citizen of a first-world, developed nation, you have no valid reason to kill anyone. There are times when we consider your killing ACCEPTABLE – for example, self defense – but that’s not a VALID REASON to seek out to kill someone, it’s just that we decided your killing isn’t criminal. As such, I wouldn’t shed a tear if you weren’t allowed to own a functional musket. Again, if you want one hanging on your wall, render it incapable of killing anyone first.
Imagine having to prove that you aren’t going to use your murder-tool to commit the crime of murder? Totally fine by me.
In a “perfect world” we wouldn’t have so many people obsessed with killing that this would be a concern. I have nothing against killing animals – but this fascination with doing it yourself is deeply disturbing to me.
I don’t think it’s true that they “do fine”.
They might pose little threat now, but there is no guarantee that things couldn’t change. The US military had zero qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of “fellow Americans” between 1861 and 1865.
It’s hard to know how many individuals have been killed by American police, since I don’t believe any statistics are kept on that. However, it is widely agreed that police brutality/excessive use of force are significant problems, especially among minority populations.
EscAlaMike, please tell me you’re joking…
HAHAHAHAHA GASP HAHAHAHA!!! Are you seriously making the argument that mass shootings are a worse problem around the world then they are in the United States? SERIOUSLY?
By “fellow Americans” do you mean “traitorous terrorists who took up arms for one of the worst causes in history, then rebelled against the legitimately elected government of the United States”? Because if so, then your quote makes sense. Otherwise, it seems like you don’t really understand how civil wars work.
You’re absolutely right, police brutality is horrible in this country. And every time we tell the cops to take it easy, they (and their supporters, who also happen to be gun right supporters… Hmmm) they tell us, “We can’t take it easy! We have to CONSTANTLY be on guard, because of how often we get shot at!”. One of the most dangerous tasks police officers do, in terms of how many of them die in the process? Traffic stops. Because our wonderful second amendment means that any speeding stop can easily escalate into murder.
Maybe police brutality could be toned WAY DOWN if we could keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And maybe we could do THAT if there weren’t 300 million guns in this country.