Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[gnome]

I had a poll on this a long time ago and it seems to have been lost.

I am repeating to see if I get similar results.

The poll is for US residents that identify themselves as liberal or conservative, to measure the spectrum of opinion on gun control.

For purposes of this thread, assume that the 2nd amendment is not in effect. If you think it's a good idea, feel free to vote for the banning of all firearms without regard to the legality of it.

In other words, I'm trying to gather opinions without factoring in the side issue of how to interpret the Constitution properly.

With regard to local differences in laws, make your vote according to your impression of gun control laws overall in the US, especially federal laws.

 

[Rolfe]

So you don't want non-US-citizens to vote at all?

In that case, I'd have recommended two more options on the poll.

• I am not a US citizen and I am against gun control
• I am not a US citizen and I am in favour of gun control

Or even go the whole hog and repeat all five options for the non-US-citizens. Cos like this you're going to get non-US-citizens messin up your stats.

Rolfe.

I'm gonna vote planet X, so I can see the poll.

 

[gnome]

Unfortunately the forum prevents me from editing this poll. I was worried adding non-us options would make too many... it shouldn't mess it up if most people read the assumptions before voting. Non-USers should please vote X if they wish to vote, and detail their thoughts on the state of US law in a post . I should add that non-citizens that reside in the US should feel free to vote in the main selection.

Part of the reason for the poll is that the issue is more complicated than just "for or against".

ETA: Thanks Tricky for making the correction for me!

 

[gumboot]

I am a non-American, and I am happy with the gun laws in my own country. We have a "register the user" approach to gun ownership, with restrictions on automatic weapons and hand guns. Actual ownership of guns is fairly open, however what you may do with your gun is much more restricted - carrying a firearm in public is prohibited unless transporting it from place to place (it must be carried unloaded) and when at home the bolt and magazine must be stored separately to the weapon in a locked and certified gun safe.

We have one of the highest rates of per capita firearms in the world, and one of the lowest firearms crime rates.

I do not think these measures would infringe on the 2nd Amendment, as being able to carry around a pistol on your person at all times is really not a particularly important factor in overthrowing a tyranny.

It's not like you're liable to be out shopping one day when suddenly a tyranny spontaneously seizes control and you need your pistol right there and then to overthrow them.

 

[WildCat]

Had to vote Planet X because I consider myself neither liberal or conservative. But I would choose I "believe citizen-owned firearms should be significantly less regulated".

And by "less regulated" I'm talking about my own local gun laws, not necessarily Federal ones.

 

[madurobob]

Well, this should be fun.

FWIW, I'll happily call my self "liberal" and I am more or less happy with current gun control laws. Though, perhaps not so much with their inconsistent enforcement. I wouldn't mind getting rid of state & local laws in favor uniform federal law and I wouldn't mind a requirement that all guns be registered and all gun sales have uniform record keeping requirements.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm not an American, and I see no reason outside hunting why citizens should own any kind of fire arms.

 

[Tmy]

Guns are cool! But Im ok with keepin them out of the hands of crazy people. Im not big on banning things.

 

[fuelair]

I'm not an American, and I see no reason outside hunting why citizens should own any kind of fire arms.

That always makes me assume you have never had a friend, relative or yourself robbed, mugged, raped, murdered, etc. I have.

 

[Pardalis]

That always makes me assume you have never had a friend, relative or yourself robbed, mugged, raped, murdered, etc. I have.

I'm sorry about that.

But can't one defend oneself without the use of a gun? If the criminal is using a gun, then this comes back to the question of how he acquired the gun in the first place.

 

[gumboot]

That always makes me assume you have never had a friend, relative or yourself robbed, mugged, raped, murdered, etc. I have.

Except firearms clearly don't prevent people being robbed, mugged, raped and murdered, so I fail to see the relevance.

 

[gnome]

I'm sorry about that.

But can't one defend oneself without the use of a gun? If the criminal is using a gun, then this comes back to the question of how he acquired the gun in the first place.

I'm not sure there is a forced answer to this dilemma. While it might be true that the risk of widespread public ownership of firearms is greater than the risk of being mugged and having to defend yourself without a firearm, it's not obviously true at all, and so I think it's valid to believe otherwise. Even that very question can be affected by other factors such as crime rates, police response time, and the incidence of specific threats such as someone who recently split an abusive relationship with a dangerous person. Is there a one-size-fits-all answer? I'm pretty sure there isn't.

 

[Texas]

I'm not an American, and I see no reason outside hunting why citizens should own any kind of fire arms.

Humans, as a whole, no longer need to hunt to eat so why do you make this exception?

 

[Pardalis]

Take a Virginia tech type of scenario.

Not only would there be only one crazy gunman, but if everyone owned a gun and could carry it everywhere, you would have dozens of gunmen. And once the police arrives on the scene, how are they supposed to discern between the good guys and the bad guy? For all they know, now they have dozens of people shooting at each other. Heck, once the first person starts to shoot back at the crazy gunman, how are the other people going to know who was the instigator?

I think in this sort of scenario, gun ownership compounds the chaos, instead of stopping it.

Humans, as a whole, no longer need to hunt to eat so why do you make this exception?

It can remain a sport I guess (although I don't agree).

 

[applecorped]

I voted for no restrictions whatsoever on any firearms.








Bullets however should cost $10,000.00 a piece.

 

[Texas]

Take a Virginia tech type of scenario.

Not only would there be only one crazy gunman, but if everyone owned a gun and could carry it everywhere, you would have dozens of gunmen. And once the police arrives on the scene, how are they supposed to discern between the good guys and the bad guy? For all they know, now they have dozens of people shooting at each other. Heck, once the first person starts to shoot back at the crazy gunman, how are the other people going to know who was the instigator?

I think in this sort of scenario, gun ownership compounds the chaos, instead of stopping it.


).

Can you name a single case in which that has happened? There are large numbers legally armed citizens in the US that go into public places every day and yet there have been no examples of any of them starting a gun fight.

 

[Cicero]

I'm not an American, and I see no reason outside hunting why citizens should own any kind of fire arms.

I guess your country does not trust its citizens to own firearms. But firearms used for hunting are more lethal than ones purchased for collecting, plinking and personal protection.

 

[Pardalis]

Can you name a single case in which that has happened? There are large numbers legally armed citizens in the US that go into public places every day and yet there have been no examples of any of them starting a gun fight.

You didn't understand my example. I was talking about an event where one crazy gunman starts to shoot at people in a crowd.

Most people who support gun ownership will say if people had had guns at Virginia Tech, then the killer would have been killed sooner. I disagree, as I think it would have increased the chaos, not only would there have been one shooter, but dozens of them, and the more people start to shoot, the more of them wouldn't know who to shoot at.

 

[Cicero]

I voted for no restrictions whatsoever on any firearms.








Bullets however should cost $10,000.00 a piece.

Since automobiles kill more people every year than deaths by firearms, I guess gas should be $10,000 a gallon?

 

[gumboot]

Can you name a single case in which that has happened?

Iraq?