War With Russia Teaches Ukraine To Value Private Guns
Survey finds growing acceptance of civilian firearms among the country’s population.

Nothing enhances your appreciation for firearms like needing one to defend your family and yourself. That's certainly the experience of Ukrainians, say researchers. Many residents of the war-torn country—men in particular, who traditionally carry the burden of fighting and military service—recently told interviewers that they either own firearms or want to acquire them.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Ukraine Needs Guns
"Crazy thought, but those 20 million AR-15s now in this country could sure arm a lot of Ukrainians," actor and gun-control advocate George Takei snarked a few months after Russian forces crossed the border into Ukraine. It wasn't his intention, but a lot of Ukrainians have come to agree with him.
"Between 43 and 46 per cent of men in every age group indicated that they either already own a firearm (7 per cent overall) or would like to own one," Gergely Hideg wrote last month for the Geneva, Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. "Only 11 per cent of women expressed the desire to own a firearm."
That disparity in opinion would seem to indicate a clash between the sexes until you remember that, while the demands of resisting Russia's invasion have thrust women into new roles, Ukraine is a traditional society with corresponding expectations about gender. That relatively few women want to own guns doesn't mean they lack appreciation for their defensive power.
"Despite women not wanting a firearm for themselves and many thinking that it is not necessary to have one, firearm proficiency appears to be regarded as an expected skill for a husband," Hideg adds. "Nearly six in ten women interviewed believed that 'some' (38 per cent) or 'most' (19 per cent) wives in their area expect their husbands to be familiar with firearms and know how to use them."
Why would that be? Because for two years, Ukrainians have been fighting for their independence against Russian invaders, and you don't do that with harsh words. In their defense, Ukrainian officials lobbied allies for heavy equipment and handed small arms to their own people.
"Gun shops have sold out of some weapons, such as AR-10 and AR-15 assault rifles," The Guardian reported the day before war began.
"We will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country," President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on February 24, 2022.
An Armed Society Is a Society Accustomed To Being Armed
Inevitably, common possession and use of rifles and pistols moved the needle on what Ukrainians expect. According to a 2022 poll, the share of the population supporting recognizing a right to civilian gun ownership increased from 23 percent the previous year to 58 percent. Also in that poll, 90 percent of respondents named "freedom" as a main value for their country.
"Firearm possession appears to be more normalized nowadays in Ukraine," Hideg commented in the December 2023 Small Arms Survey report. Reasons cited for owning firearms include hunting (53 percent of respondents), defense against criminals (21 percent) and "protection against potential enemies" (14 percent). Potential enemies from a neighboring country? That's a good guess.
The report's author also observed that survey respondents did not all appear to be truthfully answering questions about firearms possession and that the rate of ownership was probably higher than formal responses suggest.
That certainly reflects the experience in the United States. Last summer, researchers with Rutgers University's New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center concluded that many survey respondents claiming to not own firearms are lying and actually possess guns.
"It may be that a percentage of firearm owners are concerned that their information will be leaked and the government will take their firearms or that researchers who are from universities that are typically seen as liberal and anti-firearm access will paint firearm owners in a bad light," the authors allowed.
Civilian Guns Are Here To Stay
Citizens of a country where civilian gun ownership has historically been less widespread than in the United States may also be concerned about attempts at disarmament. Weapons distributed by the government are, theoretically, supposed to be returned when hostilities end. Don't count on it.
"Ukrainians are in no hurry to return their weapons," notes Hideg. "A plurality of Ukrainians (39 per cent) concur that soldiers will keep (at least some of) their firearms instead of returning them to the military after the war ends."
Of course, even assuming their records are in order, postwar officials will face challenges proving that weapons handed to civilians were not lost in combat. There's also the matter of battlefield pickups. That's in addition to the many firearms privately purchased before the war and likely to be supplemented afterwards by people increasingly comfortable with their possession.
Even if, contrary to their announced attention to ease gun laws, Ukrainian officials ultimately succumb to European pressure to tighten them, they'll face the usual uphill battle against their own people. Ukrainians are unlikely to be more willing than anybody else to surrender what they possess, or to submit to laws they've concluded are bad ideas. There's also the challenge posed by human innovation.
"Improvements in technology and information sharing have transformed PMFs [privately made firearms] from crude, impractical homemade devices of limited value to most criminals into highly functional weapons that are increasingly viewed as viable substitutes for factory-built firearms, including converted firearms, ghost guns, and 3D printed weapons," finds another December 2023 Small Arms Survey report.
The European Union also reportedly has a thriving market for "illicit firearms ammunition and other explosive munitions," according to a third publication.
So, Ukrainians who want to own firearms for a variety of reasons after the experience of the war with Russia are almost certain to have their desires satisfied. They'll end up armed through legal markets, the leavings of combat, or the growing and increasingly sophisticated European black market.
Challenge Accepted
If it's any consolation to opponents of private arms, Ukrainians have yet to catch up with Americans.
"More than half of American voters—52%—say they or someone in their household owns a gun," NBC News reported in November 2022. "That's the highest share of voters who say that they or someone in their household owns a gun in the history of the NBC News poll."
Almost half of Ukrainian men want to assume the responsibilities of being armed? That's a healthy start.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But I was told that if we armed then, they are more likely to kill themselves or someone in their home than an enemy!
Nardz and Goldie have effectively been saying just that all this time as concern trolls for the Ukrainians being slaughtered by the Putin they love so much.
As for me, I have loved the idea of armed Ukrainian civilians and think that if Zelenskyy demands the guns back after this war is over, then he is as evil as Putin and I hope the Ukrainian give back their weapons bullets first.
I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this Qd activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities Copy underneath site to..
Check It—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Ukrainians have a right to self defense, and civilians being armed is good. That doesn't mean that the US funding and arming them so the war can drag on and on, with little hope of Ukrainian victory, is good for anyone. (Except the MIC and international arms dealers).
You don't have to "love the idea" of armed Ukrainian civilians to appreciate the practical advantages of that when their country is invaded by a foreign army.
Obviously, they cannot take on the Red Army (not to be confused with the MAGA Army, btw) directly, but they may be able to affect the ultimate outcome of the war if the occupier cannot maintain cost-effective control of the area because of an armed resistance movement.
Scotland proposes deranged “conversion therapy” legislation:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/scotland-considers-utterly-deranged-conversion-therapy-legislation/
“The Scottish government is proposing legislation to ban so-called “conversion therapy,” which could imprison parents for up to seven years and/or fine them an unlimited amount should they oppose their child’s newly adopted “gender identity” or sexual practices.”
“We have already seen LGBT activists broaden the definition of “conversion therapy” from forced experiments on and physical abuse of homosexuals in clinical settings (which is already illegal) to include any clinical practice that challenges the assumptions of LGBT ideology. Now, activists seek to expand “conversion therapy” to any setting in which there’s dissent to the official LGBT-sanctioned approach to gender and sexuality.
One reason for this aggressive expansion is that “conversion therapy,” as previously understood, does not exist in modern-day Scotland. The proposal admits as much, stating that according to “those with lived experience,” the most common form of conversion practices in Scotland “is that of a series of ‘informal’ actions conducted over a period of time.”
From the legislative proposal:
We propose that a coercive course of behavior in the context of conversion practices will include acts that are:
• violent, threatening or intimidating towards the victim • controlling of the victim’s day-to-day activities • manipulative or pressuring the victim to act in a particular way • frightening, humiliating, degrading or punishing of the victim
As stated, violence and abuse are already illegal, while the rest — “pressuring,” “punishing,” and “controlling” — are easily conflated with ordinary parental decision-making and discipline, especially as they relate to the parents’ values and beliefs.”
[Obligatory statement about the one country with a cultural history of men wearing dresses]
Their male attire is off kilter
Pipe down!
Hey Macleod, get off of my ewe.
"Harold! Come back here Harold!"
https://youtu.be/9TeiSsJ3G_0?si=2fyVh6mfY_a1Wkci
🙂
😉
“There can be only one!”
-Gavin Macleod, as he beheads his enemies on that cruise ship he captained
Ackshuyally, young boys wore dresses as toddlers in the American Old West. It made for ease of changing diapers.
And if kilts are dresses, then so are togas, robes, etc.
Kilts are dresses the way Dylan Mulvaney is a woman.
Are skirts dresses?
They just need a double barrel shot , walkout side and fire in the air. That’ll scare those Russians away. Right Joe?
Armed Ukrainian citizens, the ones that couldn’t manage to bribe their way out of the country to avoid conscription by the Bandera worshipping western puppet in Kiev, would have used them to fight against the conscription Einsatzgruppen grabbing young men and even boys off the streets to send them to front of the meatgrinder line in a failed attempt to subjugate folks that lean east.
Incidentally, billions of dollars of weapons that the Biden regime bought with US taxpayer money sent to Ukraine cannot be accounted for. Perhaps these are undocumented freedom rods.
Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia mostly sunset the former’s program of teaching school kids how to operate, field strip, and clean the Red Army’s Kalashnikov service rifle. They are reportedly now reinstituting some of that education.
Go post on Pravda, huylo vatnik troll!
No kiddin. They're kinda running out of old people to draft.
That disparity in opinion would seem to indicate a clash between the sexes until you remember that, while the demands of resisting Russia's invasion have thrust women into new roles, Ukraine is a traditional society with corresponding expectations about gender. That relatively few women want to own guns doesn't mean they lack appreciation for their defensive power.Zoomers : X (formerly known as Twitter) :: Boomers : "Only 11 per cent of women expressed the desire to own a firearm." (the other 89% prefer their men to own one).
We know.
*sight* Clearing out a bunch of straw men –
“Gun shops have sold out of some weapons, such as AR-10 and AR-15 assault rifles,” The Guardian reported the day before war began.
Wannabe gun nerd: Stupid British anti-2A propagandists! There is no such thing as an assault rifle!
Actual gun nerd: Actually, the AR-10, chambered in a full power cartridge is a battle rifle, is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. The AR-15, however, is actually an assault rifle ideologically aligned with the StG 44, just applied to a different war in a different era.
Anglophile: They invented the language.
American: And were allowed to continue using it instead of German by the grace of Garand, Browning, and Patton.
Normal person who owns and uses guns: They’re British, just be glad they didn’t scald themselves making tea and then destroy the last remnants of their culture by trying to ban that.
What is running through your mind as you type something like this out? That you're impressing your friends, or convincing some rando to be like you? Are you just wasting time, hoping for someone to engage your loneliness? Who exactly are you rambling to here? Idk. I read things like this and cringe at the person you may be.
So you engaged their loneliness, fulfilling their hope?
What if my AR-15 identifies as a woman?
Sort of rough, aren't you? I thought it was humorous, and generally fairly close the the truth.
"Assault rifles" have long existed.
"Assault weapons" is the new, confused term invented by politicians.
I wonder if Takei realized what a self own that was?
No. American Leftists cannot self-reflect.
It's all about the narrative.
20 million ARs is by all accounts a very conservative estimate; current ownership has been estimated to be as high as 44 million.
Important to remember that while such weapons are vilified as often as possible, they account for a very small percentage of homicides, actually less than blunt objects, knives, and beating people to death. They are not even the most common weapon used in mass shootings.
And the overwhelming vast majority of people who own them will never do anything bad with them. They aren't going anywhere, and perhaps the best plan would be to focus and the minority of persons who actually commit crimes.
But should anyone want to stick to their ideals of what a great world it would be without guns yadda yadda, go ahead; you will just drive sales and pro second amendment advocacy and even more lawsuits filled by the likes of SAF, FPC, GOA, and NAGR [yes, the NRA is conspicuously absent from this list as their focus in recent years has been on the now defunct leader's legal problems and perks; we will see if they rise up from the ashes of their own making, but I doubt it and honestly we no longer need them].
"focus (on) the minority of persons who actually commit crimes."
In the real world that IS the focus and law enforcement frequently convicts the actual perp and, if that fails, they convict the wrong person. If it were possible to predict which gun owners are actually at high risk of committing a crime with a gun then discussing prevention might be somewhat productive, but since it is impossible to predict that risk, it's just a narrative fantasy of the gun ban enthusiasts.
It's pretty easy to correlate high risk of doing bad things with a gun based on gang membership or other involvement in organized or semi-organized crime. Pretty much all other gun crime is insignificant compared to that.
I generally agree, but did you know that, nation wide, barley 1/2 of homicides [called "clearance rate"] are even prosecuted? In some places it is even worse than that:
1. Flint, Mich.: 17.5%
2. Honolulu, Hawaii: 18.8%
3. Midland, Mich.: 23.1%
4. Saginaw, Mich.: 23.3%
5. Lima, Ohio: 24.5%
6. Kokomo, Ind.: 30%
7. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, Mich.: 30.9%
8. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-Pa.: 31%
9. Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Mich.: 31.8%
10. Topeka, Kan.: 32.7%
So yes, you can [and people often do] get away with murder.
https://www.newser.com/story/244203/10-cities-with-worst-murder-clearance-rates.html
Perhaps it’s the data we don’t have that proves AR-15s are the “weapon of choice” in homicides, as it is in a small fraction of mass shootings? I had alway thought “X of choice” was at least a plurality, if not a majority. Given that a 9mm handgun will merely blow a lung out, but an AR-15 will decapitate someone, how can a coroner miss the difference? Must be the mainstream media saying, ho-hum, another homicide with an AR-15 - no story there…
If it were possible to predict which gun owners are actually at high risk of committing a crime with a gun then discussing prevention might be somewhat productive,
Nope. This runs into categorization errors/problems. That is, the answer to the question of prediction doesn't dictate the answer of the question of resolution and neither question is durably definitive of both questions and answers any more than the question "What color car is the fastest?" can be answered by "Red".
Minority Report. Even if we had a method that was 98% effective at predicting a murder 30 min. in advance, we'd still have the question(s) of how do we know which are the 2% if we prevent 100% of them? What do we do with them? Who decides? Is that (too) racist?
If you could remove guns from 6% of the population, and stop at least 50% of violent crime in the country, would you?
By legal means? Or by any means?
It matters.
If you could stop at least 50% of the violent crime in this country by wishing 6% of the population out of existence, would you?
Instruments of force are anathema until you need one. And when you need one, you don't want to wait on a counterparty (police, soldier, etc.) to wield it.
Seconds count when your erstwhile rescuers are at least several minutes [or more] away. Add societal disruptions [as occurred in several localities during our most recent Summer of Love in 2020] and they may not show up at all.
Besides, federal law states clearly that all employees must remain in the donut shop until the end of their mandatory thirty minute break, and that they are not allowed to respond to any emergency during that time.
Especially when they're likely to shoot the wrong person.
There was an underground gun hoarding culture in the Ukraine before the war:
https://www.gunfacts.info/blog/weapon-in-ukraine-lessons-in-law-and-reality/
There is an old joke about people and guns here in the Ukraine.
A man went outside and saw his neighbor showering a flowerbed using lubricating oil.
“What are you doing, my friend?” he asked. “Your flowers will wilt!”
“Sure,” his friend replied. “My flowers will wilt, but my machinegun will not rust!”
Thanks! That made my day.
Seems like something got lost in translation. It's not even really a joke.
Ukrainian No. 1: Did you hear about the duel at the intersection downtown? One guy died!
Ukrainian No. 2: It would be much more efficient if they put in a roundabout.
Sounds like Boston.
File this under "too little too late".
Not at all! The Ukrainians successfully fought off and turned back an invasion by one of the most feared boogey man armies in the world. In the process they inadvertently revealed that army to be a paper tiger and Putin to be a megalomaniacal jackass.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world like that, completely divorced from reality.
Imagine the megalomaniac you had to be to not be aware of Putin as a territorial megalomaniac until Putin invaded the Donbas... after Crimea.
Imagine the stupidity and ignorance necessary to mistake rational cost/benefit calculations and strategic motivations of an amoral, brutal foreign leader (one with the second largest nuclear arsenal) for "megalomania."
The only "megalomania" I have see is by NATO leaders, who thought they could simply do whatever they damned well pleased without consequences.
If this were early 2023, I could take this comment seriously because I might say you were merely repeating the dogma as it appeared in the New York Times et. al.
But now you're not even repeating the mainstream media, who quite some time ago admitted that Ukraine has some soul searching to do, lost its offensive, has lost most of its young generation of young men to the meatgrinder that the US got a bargain in supplying, and should begin negotiations with Russia sort of nowish.
If the west had provided sufficient support about June of 2022 when it became clear that the Russians were not going to get beaten back, then autumn of 2022 might have seen the Russians pushed back to the border. But we held off too long, and now the Russians are very well dug in.
But Biden and Blinken are weenies and apparently have bad advisors and no guts.
They weren't just bad advisors with no guts, the actively subverted and derailed negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey in 2022. That's the opposite of ineffective, that's actively sabatoging.
"Don't Say Sabotage"
Presumably, you're referring to the negotiations in April 2022, and "the west's" intervention, led by its most eminent statesman, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson?
Ukraine was doomed even before the war with Russia due to its demographics.
Furthermore, Russia's primary goal in attacking Ukraine was to eliminate it as a threat and eliminate it as a fossil fuel competitor. Russia could achieve its goals by turning all of Ukraine into glassy, radioactive, smoldering crater if that was the only option the West left it. The result of "more support" for Ukraine would have been more destruction of Ukraine: massive aerial bombardment or worse.
>War With Russia Teaches Ukraine To Value Private Guns
That will only last until the war's over. Then the government will move in to put that genie back in the bottle.
And you're not going to do a lot with the guns when basically every guy in the country under 60 is dead.
At this point, Martial Law preempting Presidential Elections in Ukraine seems to be the default setting.
Even if they get out from under martial law, it gets into the sort of "social fabric election engineering" (a la mail in ballots during COVID pandemic) situation where any previous political parties have been dissolved/oppressed under martial law and would effectively have to reconstitute themselves in opposition to Zelensky.
“We will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on February 24, 2022.
“And you will defend your country with those weapons, whether you want to or not,” President Vlodymyr Zelenskyy announced right before issuing an order for mandatory conscription for everyone in the country younger than 82.
I am reminded of the Japanese admiral who, at the start of World War II was asked if they should proceed beyond Hawaii and invade the United States. He immediately dismissed that idea, stating that the population was armed and they would encounter an American with a gun behind every tree.