+

Answer Overview

Response rates from 149 RG voters.

89%
Yes
11%
No
81%
Yes
9%
No
4%
Yes, and ban all sales to countries with human rights violations
3%
No, this could prevent our allies from defending themselves against our mutual enemies
3%
Yes, but I would prefer a ban on all military aid to any foreign countries

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 149 RG voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 149 RG voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from RG voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9J8XJSXanswered…10mos10MO

The decisions should be made on a whole range of factors not just allegations of human rights abuse.

 @8SHDQKH  from New York  answered…8mos8MO

Yes, but nations should rely on their own appraisals of human rights abuses, as many human rights organizations are biased and uphold double-standards.

 @9VM4JQ3answered…1mo1MO

There would need to be clear undeniable proof that human rights violations had been committed intentionally

 @9PT47P5answered…5mos5MO

Yes, where there is clear evidence of military weapons and munitions being used to perpetrate human rights violations.

 @9NS7VWYanswered…6mos6MO

The UK should continue to export arms, just like France and the US. If these 3 nations were to stop the market would just further open to Russia and China giving them more influence in certain regions. Yes, this isnt ethical. However, it is the reality.

 @9NRL35Ganswered…6mos6MO

Yes, but the accusations have to be credible and not from parties invested in seeing those countries be weakened militarily.

 @9NG7SH8answered…6mos6MO

Yes, there should be restrictions on government arms sales to countries CONVICTED of human rights violations.

 @9JHYPPSanswered…10mos10MO

We should not sell arms reasonably likely to be used against civilians to countries proven to commit human rights violations.