POLL: Gun Ownership

Remove all ads!

There seems to be a prevailing view than non-Americans own far fewer guns than Americans, so I decided to put up a quick poll. I personally don't own a gun, because the only thing I could possibly use a gun for is home protection, but since I would keep it locked up, I don't know if I'd be able to access it quickly enough to be of any ultimate use. Anyway, there's two questions, same choices for both, one for the Americans, one for non-Americans.

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 79 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Gun Ownership (79 votes.)

I'm American and I... (Choose 7)
* own a gun for personal/home protection. - 15% (12)
* own a gun for hunting/sport purposes. - 14% (11)
* own a gun because of my profession (e.g. police officer). - 1% (1)
* Other (please specify below) - 5% (4)
* do not own a gun, but I would consider owning one in the future. - 10% (8)
* do not own a gun, and I can foresee no circumstances where I would purchase one. - 10% (8)
* I'm not an American - 62% (49)

I'm not American and I... (Choose 7)
* own a gun for personal/home protection. - 4% (3)
* own a gun for hunting/sport purposes. - 4% (3)
* own a gun because of my profession (e.g. police officer). - 0% (0)
* Other (please specify below) - 5% (4)
* do not own a gun, but I would consider owning one in the future. - 11% (9)
* do not own a gun, and I can foresee no circumstances where I would purchase one. - 41% (32)
* I'm an American - 38% (30)

 

Non-American Non-Gun owner here.

I don't hunt, and if I did I would probably use a bow in order to give the animal at least something of a sporting chance. I don't believe in using guns for home protection purposes. Thus, I see no reason for me to ever get a gun.

 

@BTA - I really wasn't thinking of BB guns. Sure, I guess they could cause some damage if you shot someone in the face with it, but I generally don't consider them dangerous weapons.

 

@JSBB - Aren't you giving your prey a chance if you're using a gun? They're not supposed to be 100% accurate either, and if you hit there's more chance of a fatality. Thus there's less chance of any unnecessary suffering.

On the other hand- that's just one opinion. Some might think that an animal surviving in any state is more humanely treated than if it were given a coup-de-grace.

Just some food for thought though.
I for one, don't own a gun but might get one for protection in the years to come.

 

I own a .357 for protection as well as a rifle and two shot guns. I used to hunt. I also owned a .45 semi auto. And I have used a fire arm twice for protection, though fortunately I never had to fire them.

 

Given the the bullet speed, range and rate of fire on a modern rifle, not to mention the scopes, it seems to me that your average animal has such a low chance of survival, let alone taking down the hunter, that it is hardly fair.

A bow on the other hand has a relatively short range, slower missile speed, slower time to reload etc. If you graze an animal with an arrow then it has a good chance of escape (or to take you out if it is a bear or possibly even a moose) before you can get off a second shot. Also, you actually have to sneak up into close range instead of shooting from the large range of a modern hunting rifle.

 

Guns don't kill people, people do. That pretty much describes my stance at this. People who hold their guns at places accessable for children are begging for trouble. For me guns as home security are not worth dead children. Saying to the kids "remember you can't touch the gun or daddy/mommy will be very angry!" is not quite enough. On the other hand if the gun is not easily accessable it becomes ineffective as security. One option is of course to have the gun with you all times even when you sleept, but sleeping with your gun is well... strange.

I chose the "considering getting one" option. I won't get a gun for home security that's for sure (it would not even be a legimate cause for getting a gun) but I have been considering target shooting.

 

I'm not American, I don't have a gun, but I could possibly end up getting one in the future.

However, to be honest, when you really desperately need firearms for your protection, your having a gun doesn't make much difference and you'd better hire professionals. Still, a gun protects you from random idiots. It's just the question of whether you're going to have the time to pull it, let alone to aim, and if your country's law isn't going to put you behind the bars for maiming some idiot who didn't like the idea of honest work or consensual sex.

 

I don't have one, because I don't want one. I'd be wary of even touching it, and I don't need one anyway. I'd rather lose my television than shoot someone trying to steal it. Also, it's illegal to have one.

 

I'm not American and I don't own a gun. I actually don't think I've ever seen one.

I'm very very very glad that I don't live in a country that even has a concept of having a gun for "home protection". As far as I am aware, nobody in NZ has a gun for "home protection". If I had a gun I'd be far more worried about killing the wrong person than I would be of losing my TV, so I'm with Alavin on this one.

That movie Bowling for Columbine really really scared me.

 

When hunting, your goal is to kill an animal. Why be concerned with fairness?

 

I just want to say that when counting hunting weapons and the like I think the amount of weapons per capita is probably at least as high in northern Europe as in the US. Add to this the fact that at least teh Swedish and Swiss ecquivalent of the national guard keep their assault rifles in their homes which makes the amount of weapons per capita even higher.

The difference I would say lay solely in hand guns, pistols which to my knowledge is only owned by criminals, police men, some military officers and well, that is pretty much it. I reckon there are a few owned by sports shooters but that is something I have never encountered and most sport shooters use those special funky air guns you see in the olympics.

 

If all you want to do is kill an animal then I suggest going down to the nearest slaughter house and slipping the foreman a few bucks to allow you to operate the kill floor equipment.

If you are going to go hunting for "sport" then it doesn't seem right to me to start out with a severe handicap in your favour. If your opponent is almost sure to lose then it is hardly a sport.

 

I am not American, and I do not own a gun.

My step-father does, and my mother does, and so do many others I know, but those are all hunting weapons.

The idea of having a gun for home protection is odd to me. I think that a baseball bat would be more effective in a closed area, and I wouldn't have to worry about shooting myself.

Plus, you never hear about those kids who found a baseball bat in their father's closet and took off a finger or something.

 

An animal is almost sure to lose to an armed human being. Yes, even with a bow. You don't see deer launching their antlers at people 100 yards away, now do you?

 

Well put, Jaguar. Those are my sentiments on the matter.

 

Indian and I dont own a gun. Nor do I think there is any way or reason for me to legally own a gun unless I'm a politician or a rich jeweller / businessman, who faces threats to life and property.
Frankly, any time we have read of people being killed in their home, the victims have been the gentry and women. Weapons like guns being readily available wouldn't have helped them and instead would probably increase crime rates.

 

No but you do see deer run away like a bat out of hell. You would have to be damned good with a bow to hit them.

With a bear or a moose the animal has a pretty good chance of being able to take out a gunless hunter - it would take some real nerve and skill to get off a killing shot with a bow against an angry charging bear or moose.

 

I don't have one, but I've used one before (went hunting in Alaska). I liked the experience, and plan to get a gun of my own for that purpose within the next five years.