U.S. Most Armed Country with 90 Guns per 100 People

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
By Laura MacInnis

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070828/us_nm/world_firearms_dc

[rodeodance]

1. nothing to be proud of!!

[krispos42]

4. So we should be ashamed of our rights and freedoms? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. No.

You should be ashamed for entirely different reasons.

[krispos42]

17. I'm listening n/t

[Seabiscuit]

21. Here's a thought:

Why should we be proud of the fact that we live in such a cowardly state of fear that we arm ourselves to the teeth compared to other nations, and that we kill each other through various forms of homicide with those guns in far greater numbers than any other nation?

[krispos42]

22. Okay

The cowardly state we may or may not live is is not related to the fact that we arm ourselves to the teeth. Many dozens of countries have vast swatches of their populaces living in fear.

They by and large are not allowed to arm themselves, that is why they are not 'armed to the teeth', despite living in as much if not more fear.

As to the 'far greater numbers' theory...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2969725&mesg_id=2969764

[Seabiscuit]

41. All right...

I wasn't talking about "murders" in "far greater numbers", I was talking about *homicides*, a much larger set of killings than murder. *Homicide* includes manslaughter, negligent killing with a firearm, mistaken killing with a firearm, purely accidental killing with a firearm, and self-defense killing with a firearm, all of which are *homicides* but not *murder".

Secondly, although we rank among the 24 worst countries in the world in murders per capita, when it comes to murders using a firearm, we plunge to the #6 worst country in the world, just ahead of 5 backwards countries.

Oh, yeah, we should be REAL proud of that. About as proud as the fact that we rank something like #30 in health care among industrialized nations.

And one of those countries with "vast swatches of their populaces living in fear" is Iraq, thanks to our lovely government.

[krispos42]

80. Well, that's a given

Obviously, if gun's didn't exist, then nobody would die of gunshot wounds. Accidental or otherwise. It does not mean that they wouldn't die, they just wouldn't die of gunshot wounds.

One regular anti-gun poster here likes to brag about the record-low GUN homicide rate in England and Wales. I think it's like 56 people in 2005 were killed by guns.

However, the OVERALL homicide rate in England and Wales is at all-time highs, something like 850 murdered in 2005.

The UK banned the ownership and possession of 'assault weapons' in 1989, and all handguns in 1998. No grandfather clause. Turn'em all in or go to jail. It has had no positive effect on either the overall crime rate or the overall murder rate. However, the number of GUN-related homicides and suicides is down.

You see where it's going.

Crime plummated like a rock during the Clinton years. It wasn't because Clinton banned the sale of new semi-automatic rifles that looked military. It was because he pumped money into social programs, put cops on the street, and stoked the economy.

That's what works. And that's exactly what Bush ISN'T doing. Clinton's COPS program? Completely defunded by 2005. Social programs? Fuggedaboutit. Economy? Shipped off to China.




About 29,000 people a year in this country are killed via gun. About 17,000 are suicides, 10,000 are homicides, 600 are police or civilian justifiable homicides, and the balance are accidents or whatever.

[Seabiscuit]

90. I've also seen studies

that confirm common sense that indicate that possession of guns increases the incidence of homicide. Without guns around, it's a lot harder to kill people, and, of course, kids won't have the opportunity to get into daddy's cabinet or drawers and play with his guns, accidentally setting them off in the direction of their friends or siblings.

I'm not interested in any pro vs. anti-gun arguments. I was simply posting in line with the OP in response to a question.

I don't buy the numbers you put up about there being a 1.7-to-1 ratio in suicides to homicides via guns, however. Everything I've ever read about it indicate that homicides far outnumber suicides.

[krispos42]

100. Common sense in visual form

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#Violence

By all accounts, Americans are the best-armed they have ever been.

In the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Warsaw Pact, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of military-surplus AK-47 and SKS rifles were civilianized (no automatic fire, features removed to comply with 1993 Assault Weapons Ban), imported, and sold to American citizens. And with hundreds of millions of 30-round AK-47 bananna clips in the world that were made prior to the 1993 AWB, finding plenty of big magazines for a civilian AK-47 was never a problem.

The response by the gun-buying public to the 1993 AWB was to start buying AR-15 rifles to the point that now there are a dozen companies making them, and they sell all they can make. The millions of ex-military personnel in the US, who had depended on the M-16 for their lives in conflicts around the world, turned to the civilian AR-15 when they wanted a semi-automatic rifle. And the public discovered the adaptability and accuracy of the AR-15 rifle.

In the 1970's the Army issued an announcement it was looking for a new pistol to replace the old Model 1911 .45. As a result of the intense competition for this contract, the high-capacity 9mm pistol was introduced to America. Since then, pretty much everybody makes and sells 9mm and .40-caliber pistols with double-stacked magazines of 13, 15, and 17 rounds. Big names like Glock, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Sig-Sauer, Walther, Heckler & Koch, Browning, Taurus, etc. In fact, it is rather hard to find a 9mm pistol that DOESN'T have a double-stacked magazine, that limits itself to 8 or 9 rounds.

And, as the original post states, the per-capita rate of firearm ownership is at an all-time high.

Yet our homicide rates are at 40-year lows.

We own something like two-thirds of all civilian-owned guns in the world. 6,700 million civilians in the world, and America's 300 own 68% of their guns.

There is absolutely no doubt that high gun ownership rates make more snap killing possible. There is also no doubt that it serves as a crime deterrent tens of thousands times a week, some of which would have been homicides.

[Seabiscuit]

105. This might be a good time to say

I'm really not interested in any of that.

You keep changing the subject and going on and on about your pro-gun rants, and excuuuuse me, but that old pro-v-con-gun stuff has been beaten to death in DU for years now, and I for one am sick and tired of it.

So I'm not even going to read your lengthy post.

Without someone like me to respond to, maybe you'll quiet down a bit.

As for Dept. of Justice stats, they're very superficial and who trusts our Dept. of Justice any more after so many years of the whole Bush/Gonzo thing?

[krispos42]

113. Fair enough

I didn't address part of your previous post. Apologies.

Homicides by Weapon Type

Year*Handgun*Other gun*Knife*Blunt object*Other weapon
2005__8,478____2,868___2,147______671________2,528

Total gun: 11,346
Total non-gun: 5,346
Total: 16,692

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

U.S.A. SUICIDE: 2004 OFFICIAL FINAL DATA

Nation Totat: 32,439

By firearm: 16,750

http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2004datapgv1.pdf

[zanne]

93. Gun people will always find an excuse

They're like the 29% Bush supporters. They don't want to face the truth--they just want their guns.

[tesla78]

117. Anti-gun people are anti-Constitution

They have no regard for the second amendment right to bear arms. Do you expect your freedoms to be enforced by mere words on paper? What good are laws/freedoms without the police officer and court system to enforce them? Without the capability of enforcement, everyone can safely ignore the laws.

The citizenry is the ultimate Constitutional officer against destructive government. The right to bear arms was written after the right to free speech. Our founders knew an armed citizenry would be the final check & balance against a corrupt government.

I would hate to have an anti-Constitution neighbor if our government ever becomes destructive (ie: Nazi Germany), in a foreign invasion...or a Katrina like event.

Please, never forget the principles our Country was founded on.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[zanne]

122. "Without the capability of enforcement.....

Anyone can ignore the law." Do you really want the current gun laws more strictly enforced, or would you let guns "slide" on that one?

[Socal31]

81. Huh?

You know the Swiss are armed FAR GREATER than we are? With Military Assault Weapons? Learn your facts please. Its the idiots who use them that are the problem.


If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, go ahead and wait 5 minutes for the police. Meanwhile, my glock 40 will put 4 in thier chest, and my daughter will be safe.

[Seabiscuit]

106. Oooooo,

there's a poster that sounds like such a manly manly man going off half-cocked with his glocketyglocketyglock.

[Socal31]

119. Oooooo,

theres a poster who instead of adding facts or disputing mine, tries to trivialize what I said by attacking me personally.

[heliarc]

109. Most domestic shootings are between family members

And a lot of those occur mistakenly. I hope you don't mistake your daughter for an intruder.

[Socal31]

118. Not any easier

than the police could.

[stressfulreality]

112. so what are we supposed to do?...

when the day comes and war is at our front door, what do we do?

pull out the roach spray and butter knives?

[Seabiscuit]

121. My answer:

Leave the country. Fast. When that day comes we're all without a country.

[Xenotime]

27. Yes. The country brings more fear and terror than any other nation.

There is just no need for those things.

[krispos42]

29. Ah. 'need'.

Well, good thing we have a Bill of Rights instead of Department of Determination of Need, isn't it?

At least, that's how it's suppose to work.

Republicans have found a lot of things that 'there is just no need for' recently, too. Things like habeas corpus and the 4th, 5th, and 5th Amendments.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

34. All of it

-CITE-
10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA 01/02/2006

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-End-



-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

boldface mine

[ProudDad]

36. By the definition you're trying to imply

all of those "criminals" you're scared shitless of are also included in your "militia", eh?

Nice try...No Cigar...

You don't pass the smell test...

[krispos42]

38. Yup

At least all the male ones.

Amd all the ones not excluded from potential militia service by medical problems, mental problems, or criminal records.

All of the other criminals that people are also scared of, the under-17 crowd and over-45 crowd, aren't in the militia.

[The Doctor.]

60. Here's a take on it I've found useful;

My take on the 2nd acknowledges both side's interpretations, but I think that the Founders intended the second as a universal right. Here is how and why;



As the gun control folks point out, the amendment specifically refers to ‘a well-regulated militia’, therefore, in their opinion, it does not convey the right of the general populace to bear arms unless they are part of a ‘regulated militia’.

I would point out, on the other hand, that the basis for the amendment stated therein is, “necessary for the security of a free state”. This is intended to address the potential for abuse and abridgement by the government itself, as well as foreign aggressors. If this is the case, then the founders didn't want the Federal Government to have sole control of the 'militias' because that would entirely defeat the purpose of maintaining a free state under threat of tyranny. Since the following is quite clear; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, the membership of ‘the people’ in a ‘well-regulated militia’ is secondary to the necessity of ‘the people’ having the right to bear arms. Therefore while the recognition of the necessity of a ‘well-regulated militia’ is given to address the issue of freedom, it is predicated on those who would form that militia bearing arms prior to and independent from the formation of said militia.

Should the people have the need, they may form a ‘well-regulated’ militia with their arms in order to maintain freedom. Let’s face it, a ‘poorly regulated’ militia wouldn’t be very effective, now would it?

“Regulation”, in this case, is not provided by those who control the federal government, but by the Constitution itself and the necessary rules of military conduct appropriate to the circumstances. Otherwise the federal government could easily oppress the people by deciding that only members of a state-controlled militia can bear arms, and only when serving in that capacity.

In other words, it would result in the formation of the very power structure our Forefathers decided was anathema to Democracy and freedom itself.

Anyone who claims that men like Jefferson, Adams, and the inventor Benjamin Franklin were so limited to think that their era represented the peak of scientific achievement and never would there be weapons more powerful than the musket and cannon insults those very forward-thinking architects of the greatest nation in history.

So let’s not go there.

[knight_of_the_star]

120. Just as an aside on that

The military the Founders used to fight the British was a volunteer militia-based force, not a standing professional army like what we have now. Historically it wasn't until after WWII that the US has maintained a large, professional standing army and in the past has relied on either a draft or mass mustering of the populace for war. I think the other part of their focus on a well-armed populace was not just to keep power from being too concentrated but also because they did NOT, thanks to their experience and Europe's recent history and experience with professional soldiers, want a large, professional standing army but something made up of citizens mustered in time of war and ONLY for that purpose.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Illegal Guns and Easy Access is not a Right

........anymore than gun violence is freedom.

[stressfulreality]

110. ... my legal firearm and my level headed brain are ready to protect my family and your family n/t

[Man_in_the_Moon]

115. Illegal speach and easy access to the internet is not a right!!!

Who shall we let decide what is illegal speach?

Who shall we let have access to the internet?

[Occulus]

30. Nothing to be ashamed of, either

I inherited mine from my father- a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle.

BFD.

[lynne]

66. Same here - I think we have 4 or 5 that were inherited -

- one is passed down to the next male in line when he reaches the age of 11 as that was the age of the original owner when he was given the rifle in the 1920's. It's an antique so it gets passed down but is no longer fired.

[stressfulreality]

108. umm.. our civilian population is standing by to FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE!!

i'm so sick of people trying to make gun owners look bad. STOP THE NONSENSE.

gun owners are standing by to FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE!!

[krispos42]

2. Are you reading this, BushCo?

Still thinking about putting off elections? Becoming President-For-Life? Declaring martial law? Trying out those shiney new National Security Directives and Executive Orders you've been minting out of Rove's office?

[ProudDad]

33. Hear that bushCo

krispos42 and a few of his well-armed buddies are going up against your F-15s and tanks with their pea-shooters...

Tremble with fear, bushies...

[krispos42]

39. Ah, you should be in PNAC

With that attitude, you can fearlessly invade and occupy any number of Middle Eastern countries with no problems whatsoever.

[SayWhatYo]

51. Seems to work in Iraq....

*note* I do not own any guns nor plan on owning any the future. So my comment has nothing do with that.

[ProudDad]

52. In Iraq

the U.S. military isn't going up against a few thousand lightly armed couch potatoes with little support from the rest of the population; a population of couch potatoes who are watching re-runs of Big Brother and American Idol... :evilgrin:

[krispos42]

88. No, they are going up against guns that we gave them

Or "lost". Along with the 360 short tons of palletized Benjamins.

Bush is just a fuckin' master strategist, isn't he?

[BOSSHOG]

3. Thats unconsitutional

According to the second amendment every American over the age of six should be heavily armed at all times for safety's sake.

[Raskolnik]

72. Really?

According to the second amendment every American over the age of six should be heavily armed at all times for safety's sake.

Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? Mine doesn't say anything of the sort, so one us has a defective copy.

[BOSSHOG]

94. We don't have defective copies

however there are numerous defective interpretations of that one sentence, interpretations made to advance an agenda. Its one sentence, not hard to understand and should not be and does have have to be subject to interpretation. But lets arm all students and faculty members on campus, all travelers on aircraft, all shoppers at Wal-Mart. In fact, Wal-Mart should sell live weapons at the checkout. All drunken frat boys should be heavily armed. And if I feel my safety is threatened well I can just blow the motherfucker away cause thats what it says in the second amendment right?

[sinkingfeeling]

5. "We're Number One". In gun ownership and deaths by guns!!

[krispos42]

9. Ah, too much mainstream media for you

They do as good a job with guns as they do with everything else

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[valerief]

6. But aren't most of them illegally sold overseas? nt

[madrchsod]

7. they`ll have to pry is out of my blood stained hands

well paint stained hands......

[Seabiscuit]

12. The USA has become the "Planet of the Apes", repleat with Herr Chimp for Pretzledent.

[RedEarth]

8. I own zero guns

[Orrex]

14. You're totally screwing up the curve, you shameless peacenik

For the sake of statistical propriety, it's imperative that you run out and purchase at least 2.4 guns before the end of the day.

[EFerrari]

15. I own no weapons unless you count my cooking.

:hi:

[scrinmaster]

25. I own eight, so far.

And I'm only 20. I'm probably going to get another in the next couple weeks.

[YOY]

58. Why on earth do you need 8?

I have one. I mean if you hunt avidly you still wouldn't need more than 3 or 4 at best. A few high caliber rifles and maybe a .22 or something for small game...that's about it.

Self defense?

I'm honestly curious.

[benEzra]

67. Most people don't own guns for hunting; most gun owners aren't hunters.

Why on earth do you need 8?

I have one. I mean if you hunt avidly you still wouldn't need more than 3 or 4 at best. A few high caliber rifles and maybe a .22 or something for small game...that's about it.

Self defense?

I'm honestly curious.

Most of us own guns for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting, and there is quite a bit of overlap between those two. About 1 in 5 gun owners hunts.

My wife owns two guns, a collectible Russian carbine (a 1952 Tula SKS) and a Glock 9mm pistol, which she is quite competent with. The Glock is for defensive purposes, and the SKS can also stand in that role, though it is more her "fun rifle," and she has a special interest in Russian history.

I own a 9mm pistol (a Smith & Wesson Ladysmith) and a small-caliber rifle (civilian AK-47 lookalike, non-automatic) both for defensive purposes and for recreational shooting; I also shoot competitively with both. I also own a couple of antique collectibles (antique Mosin-Nagants); the oldest is 102 years old, bears the imperial crest of Czar Nicholas II, was captured by the Finns when the Finns declared independence from Russia, and helped kick both the Soviets and the Nazis out of Finland.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x1128
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x1177

[YOY]

101. The antiques sound cool! You've just found a fellow Rusophile!

I especially like to consider myself a dabbler in the sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad and have studied these long term engagements excessively...call it morbid curiosity to the idea of a "city under siege."

Are any of the Mosin Nagants different variables?

Is the old one the Dragoon variant, the Cossack, or the Infantryman's 1891? If it's over 102 it can't be the carbine. That was used in WWI first I think.

Any Mosin Nagant 1891/30s? I wouldn't mind seeing the rifle Vasili Zaytsev used. Pretty sure it was just the standard with a scope. Pretty impressive record, even with an assumed Soviet "pump-up" to it. I've been to his grave.


Frankly they sound like hell of collectors pieces!

Ochen Prekrasno!

[benEzra]

104. It's a Finn M39, built on an M1891 Izhevsk hex receiver dated 1905

bearing the czarist crest proofmark (double headed eagle over a Cyrillic letter). It was rebarreled and upgraded to M39 status in 1942 at the Finnish VKT arsenal in Jyvaskyla, where it received a fine Finn barrel, a new stock, and range-compensating Finn sights graduated from 150 meters to 2.0 kilometers. Some time after 1942, an artistic Finnish soldier delicately carved the initials "E.T." into the rear sight base, where they wouldn't easily be seen by casual inspection.

Based on its date of manufacture, it could have seen action in World War I, the Bolshevik revolution, the Finn fight for independence, the Winter War (presumably on the Finn side), and the Continuation War. The stories it could tell...



BTW, best group so far is 1 3/8" at 100 yards, from a rest. It can still shoot pretty darn well.

The other Mosin is a Polish M44 carbine, postwar (1952).

BTW, Russian M1891's, 91/30's, M38's, and M44's are still well under $200, but they won't stay that low forever; I want to pick up at least an M1891 or 91/30 before the supply dries up. My wife owns a beautiful Russian SKS (1952, Tula), and I own an AKM-47 lookalike (Romanian SAR-1, non-automatic civilian model; real ones are like $15,000 and require Federal authorization to possess), so an M1891 or 91/30 would pretty much give us a "history of Russian/Warsaw Pact small arms" collection through the early '70s. Of course, then I'd have to pick up a civvie AK-74 lookalike, and a Makarov... :)

[LanternWaste]

10. The most heavily armed society on the planet, yet I feel less safe.

The most heavily armed society on the planet, yet I feel far less safe than were we the least armed society...

Maybe by trying to ensure safety, we end up endangering those around us. That's some Double-Plus Good stuff.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Exactly

The gun lobby solution to gun violence is to arm US citizens with more guns. They say we need guns to protect ourselves...........as if having more guns has done any such thing.

They wonder why so many are called nuts.

[smirkymonkey]

76. I can't even get my mind around the whole gun mentality.

It's just bizarre to me. I find our country's penchant for gun ownership repulsive. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to OWN guns, I just find the DESIRE to owns guns, especially those who feel they need MULTIPLE guns kind of sick. It's all about killing.

And we wonder why the US is such a violent nation. It's because it's filled with so many paranoid people who think they may have to blow someone away at a moments notice.

[krispos42]

82. Multiple guns

Guns, like other tools, are specialized. You can buy a general-purpose gun, and it will do a lot of things, but none of them particularly well.

If you have the money, you get a particular brand, type, and caliber of gun you believe best suited to your needs.

It's like any other consumer product. PCs are specialized, tennis rackets are specialized, cookware is specialized, clothing is specialized. Take a look at the pliers section of a hardware store some time!

The details of specialization would probably bore you, so I won't go into them. But trust me, it's there! :-)



Most crime is drug-related one way or another. We refuse to rehabilitate drug users, and we refuse to legalized them. We'd rather dump billions on enforcement and prisons instead.

And the growing gap between the rich and poor isn't helping, either.

[pipoman]

97. Just a thought

"It's all about killing."

Some gun ownership is obviously about hunting I don't know if you consider that killing or if you are referring to the killing of humans..

In fact most guns are used for sport shooting. Every weekend, at a range near you, thousands of Americans compete in shooting competitions and events as well as individually for recreation. http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/index_uk.asp?SportCode=SH These guns are only about killing paper and clay.

"And we wonder why the US is such a violent nation. It's because it's filled with so many paranoid people who think they may have to blow someone away at a moments notice."

Those who oppose gun ownership by law abiding Americans often site high homicide rates in the US as a reason to ban or heavily control guns. Then state those who own guns for defense are "paranoid". Which is it? Is there a violence problem in the US? If so how is it paranoid to keep a means of defense against this rampant violence?

Statistics are one thing, my chances statistically are undoubtedly low that someone would attack me and/or my family. My chances of my home burning down are also statistically low, I still keep fire extinguishers charged and smoke detectors and fire insurance. When it comes to fire protection or protection from attack statistics mean nothing much to me, it is the anecdotal that drives my desire to own smoke alarms and a defensive gun.

[LanternWaste]

98. I agree. We commercialize, market and glorify violence in our culture

I agree. We commercialize, market and glorify violence in our culture. An examination of the most popular movies and video games at any given time are quite illustrative of this-- our darker aspect we advertise with pride.

(And for the knee-jerk, pseudo-psychologist crowd, please bear in mind the different between an Example vs. a Cause & Effect...).

Paranoia may only be one aspect of it. While I do believe that there are some firearm owners who have a legitimate and valid reason for owning a piece of metal whose sole purpose is to either wound or kill, I also think there's also a "manly-macho" aspect of it, an "it's my right so I'll have as many as I can get regardless of whether I need it" aspect, and my favorite-- the "civil war is coming because so many people disagree with my politics so I better be an armed patriot" movement (very popular amongst the crowd who have wet dreams about a post-apocalyptic scenario hitting the planet...).

As for me, I feel safer when I'm in a household with no firearms )I hear that makes me a 'gun-grabber' in trendy parlance).


:hi:

[benEzra]

111. Thoughts on gun ownership...shooting is Zen, not Rambo.

I can't even get my mind around the whole gun mentality.

It's just bizarre to me. I find our country's penchant for gun ownership repulsive. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to OWN guns, I just find the DESIRE to owns guns, especially those who feel they need MULTIPLE guns kind of sick. It's all about killing.

And we wonder why the US is such a violent nation. It's because it's filled with so many paranoid people who think they may have to blow someone away at a moments notice.

Thoughts on gun ownership, from this gun owner...contrary to popular belief, shooting is Zen, not Rambo.

I wrote the following as part of very interesting discussions with gun-control activists on other threads, but much of it is pertinent here, I think. As I mentioned in one of those threads, for most gun owners, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines. It is not "all about killing," or about wanting to "blow somebody away on a moment's notice," any more than serious study of Isshinryu, Tae Kwan Do, Kenpo, or Kuk Sul Won is about killing people with your bare hands, or wanting to kick people's asses. Certainly, any martial art (including the study of the gun) gives you the ability to use potentially lethal force in the gravest extreme of self-defense, but it is about much more than that.

I hope you'll read the following with an open mind, even if you don't agree with it:

(benEzra)
my wife and I don't own guns out of fear, and I don't think many people do. As I have mentioned elsewhere on DU and on CGCS, the defensive utility is part of the picture for most people, certainly, but it's largely a competence thing, just like skill with any other martial art.

Here are some thoughts that I've posted before here on DU and CGCS, in no particular order.

Proficiency with firearms is a martial art just like isshinryu karate, tae kwan do, kenpo, or tai chi, and can gives a sense of accomplishment and competence just like any other human discipline. The Japanese concept of bushido applies just as much to the gun culture as to other martial arts cultures. I have some moderate experience in the Asian martial arts culture (isshinryu), and there are a lot of similarities between the gun culture and the traditional martial arts culture, and just as with empty-hand martial arts, proficiency in self-defense is a symbiotic benefit that is a worthwhile purpose in its own right.

Just as with the other martial arts, IMHO training and skill development are an end in itself, very much a Zen thing, if you will. To shoot well you must view shooting in a very Zen-like way; breath control, minimization of muscle tremors, concentration, sharp focus on the front sight, smoothness... A lot of the shooters I know also have a thing for archery, which is pretty much the same thing, and my wife did fencing for a while.

Some people pride themself on how well they can smack a small white ball with a stick on a golf course. Others pride themselves on how accurately they can shoot a firearm.

Also, I am a certifiable physics geek, and there are very few inexpensive hobbies that are more physics-intensive than rifle shooting. (Aviation is more physics-intensive, but it's not inexpensive...) Many shooters are mechanically inclined, and I'll bet the percentage of photographers and engineers among shooters is higher than in the population at large. My younger sister is a shooter and she also happens to be a professional engineer, with degrees in both engineering and mathematics.

Gun owners also tend to lean individualist rather than collectivist, and generally tend to have a high view of individual rights, though there are certainly exceptions. If you hang around most gunnies much, you'll find nearly as much disdain for free-speech restrictions and 4th-amendment violations as for the latest gun-grab attempt, and you'll find a lot of sympathy with the ACLU except for their dyslexic view of the Second Amendment. Note that individualist does NOT mean conservative; Big Brother communitarian conservatives are as antithetical to the individualist/libertarian mindset as any Big Brother communitarian liberals.

So I suppose it's also a freedom thing. The guns in my gun safe are a tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, a tool of personal security, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

(benEzra)
Here's the root of the disconnect, I think. A lot of prominent gun-control activists are people who have both been impacted by criminal violence, and have not been particularly exposed to the positive side of gun ownership. I think to some degree, they have come to see "guns" as the entity who victimized them, and see gun control as a way to lash out at that enemy. That victimization by people misusing guns also taints their view of gun owners, I think, that we must somehow be either ignorant, or evil, or some selfish mixture of the two, possibly with some sort of sexual deviancy thrown in (because some of those victimized see guns as sexualized power objects). As a for-instance, Sarah Brady's husband was shot by a nut with a .22 revolver; while I don't think that justifies her attempts to ban my rifles, it at least helps me understand it. I have gotten the impression in the past that billbuckhead had some connection with the 1999 Buckhead (Atlanta area) shootings, in which a day trader murdered his wife and two kids with a hammer and then killed nine people at a brokerage firm with a couple of handguns. And I think you said that you saw somebody murdered in front of you.

I'm on the other side of the coin. My great-grandparents were married in 1900, and one of the wedding presents was a nice his-and-hers set of defensive revolvers. My grandparents grew up owning handguns, rifles, and shotguns; so did my parents. My dad had a "save" with a semiautomatic pistol in the early 1970's, when I was around 5 years old (he didn't even have to draw it; the guys who approached him late one night in rural NC saw his holstered gun, looked at each other, and left).

Like most semi-rural thirtysomething people I know, I grew up with guns, learned the rules of gun safety and marksmanship while still in elementary school, wandered the woods with a BB gun by age 10 (not hunting, just plinking), was shooting .22's regularly at 16, had a semiautomatic .223 carbine and 30-round magazine at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, and obtained a carry license at 26 or 27. I shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC pistol and carbine). My wife, from Maine, is a shooter who owns a Glock and an SKS. My sister (who graduated with degrees in mathematics and engineering from N.C. State) is an avid shooter. Most of my coworkers and friends are shooters. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, and no one I know personally has ever been murdered, or participated in one. I'm 36 years old, I've never participated in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes, and I would never even think about hurting an innocent person.

Most gun owners haven't experienced guns as a tool of oppression, but as a tool of liberation and a symbol of freedom and camaraderie; some (like my dad) have actually had "saves" with guns, but for most of us, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

It's not "any and all guns" that are involved in criminal mayhem; it's actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few. And in fairness, it's not all gun-control activists that dream up creative deceptions to try to outlaw our most valued possessions, either. I think most of us on our respective sides are not as far apart as our legislative positions on the issue would appear to make us; I think we just have a huge knowledge and communication gap (on both sides).

As I've mentioned upthread, there IS common ground to be found. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn't have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (AWB, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on everybody in order to affect the bad guys (so they hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

The thing is, the misuse of guns gets a hell of a lot more publicity than their responsible use. Part of that, I think, is merely ignorance on the topic from the MSM, and part of it reflects active MSM bias on the topic. But responsible use is FAR more common than misuse, just as responsible car use is far more common than drunk driving.

And I'm not kidding about shooting being Zen. The best shooting advice I have ever received is "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast." The reason Hollywood shooting is always John Freaking Rambo is that J.F. Rambo doesn't have to actually hit what he's shooting blanks at; they'll produce the "hits" in the editing room.

I shoot competitively (IDPA/IPSC style, both pistol and rifle, against the clock, 12 to 18 rounds per stage). The winner of the most recent match I competed in was a guy in his 60's who looked like a college professor, bespectacled, with a short white beard and white hair. The key to shooting well is the same as it is in any other martial art, the ability to maintain a placid mental focus in a dynamic environment; it's a mental game, and adrenaline and testosterone are hindrances, not helps.

If you weren't so far away, I'd invite you to go shooting at the local range here. I think you'd find it much different than you probably imagine.

[Seabiscuit]

11. A proud ten percenter here!

:hi:

[krispos42]

19. Actually, you are in the majority

something like 55% of the households in the country don't own guns.

didn't want you to feel isolated! :-)

[jgraz]

57. Wow -- how many guns does one person need?

After all, you can only accidentally shoot yourself with one gun at a time.

[krispos42]

79. LOL

Well, once you start, it's like anything else. How many different types of cookwear do you have? Probably over a dozen seperate major pieces, each one with a particular strength. Round, square, and rectagular baking dishes (glass and metal), frying pans and saucepans of various sizes, cupcake tin, baking sheet, pizza stone, bundt cake pan, wok...

A person who hunts might have a .22 rifle for cheap and painless target practice (.22s are about 2 cents a round and are very mild). He might also have a 'varmit' rifle, a small-caliber high-powered and pretty accurate rifle intended for shooting things coyote-sized and smaller. Then there's his deer rifle, a medium-caliber high-power rifle.

Then he's gotta have a shotgun for ducks and geese and pheasants, so he has a 12-gage.

Then maybe he's got a gun he keeps handy in case somebody breaks in. Maybe it's a pistol, maybe it's a compact shotgun, maybe it's a semi-automatic rifle.

And maybe his wife keeps a revolver on her side of the bed for the nights he works late.

And so on, and so on... maybe he pick up a couple of WW2 rifles at a sale for collection purposes. A nice Lee-Enfield or Mosin-Naget or Mauser.

[jgraz]

96. You will pry my All-Clad Chef's pan out of my COLD DEAD HANDS

Just look at that beauty. Not only great with risotto, but the hardened zinc handle and heavy bottom make it quite effective against home invasions.

[krispos42]

99. Oooo, shiny object!

I'm distracted!

:-)



That does look like a seriously nice frying pan, though. Much better than the hand-me-down stuff my roomie gave me!

[Orrex]

16. The biggest shame is that 10 out of 100 are really dropping the ball

What are they going to pry out of your cold, dead hands, if not your high-powered assault rifle?

[krispos42]

89. Probably a phone connected to a 911 operator n/t

[superconnected]

18. Don't you all feel safer.

Oh wait, people actively using a gun(firing it) to defend themself are at a far smaller ratio than people using guns to simply kill people.

Now why is that? Ah, because the people using the guns for nefarious reasons are more likley to shoot first. That's why using guns badly will always outnumber using guns "goodly" ie in self-defense, when you tally up the gun deaths.

Plus, the person using the gun to defend themself has a less than 50/50 chance if the other person is armed too. That's because they have to take the time to go get, or pull out their gun. They have to realize they need to defend themself where as the person attacking already knew.

Now isn't the justifications of allowing guns into society for defense so people can feel safer just anti-brilliant. Yes it is. Simply tally up the gun deaths and see who shot who.

[dmallind]

23. Boy I'd like to think your omission is unintentional

but teh parentheses you put around "firing it" implies otherwise.

The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve firing the weapon. If far more of them did, gun control lobbyists would have a much stronger argument since then gunowners would be shown to be the kneejerk vigilante shoot em up types that grabbers like to portray.

In reality though a simple display is enough to scare off the vast majority of would be assailants. When the threat is removed, a gun owner is not legally (or morally) allowed to shoot. When someone has a gun in your temple, armed or not, you do not draw, but when that nice man blocks off the end of the alley wielding a tire iron while his knife-flourishing friend steps out of the door way, it's mighty handy to be able to open a jacket and reveal a Glock 30. Firing it would have been wrong. Not having it would have been suicide.

[NickB79]

26. I actively used a gun in self-defense

And didn't have to fire a shot. The police didn't even write it down when I told them about it. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[krispos42]

28. Whoa! Slow down there, Sparky!

Oh wait, people actively using a gun(firing it) to defend themself are at a far smaller ratio than people using guns to simply kill people.

Now why is that? Ah, because the people using the guns for nefarious reasons are more likley to shoot first. That's why using guns badly will always outnumber using guns "goodly" ie in self-defense, when you tally up the gun deaths.

Not true.

Various surveys have estimated between 1.2 and 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year in this country.

In any given year recently, about 350 or so people are justifiably killed by armed citizens.

This is because people defending themselves don't usually have to shoot to scare off their attackers. Nearly all the time, the simple act of making the criminal aware that you are armed will deter the attacker. Because you are, after all, an honest citizen that wants to be left alone. You don't kill for sport, or revenge, or money, or drugs.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Reality

You write: 'In any given year recently, about 350 or so people are justifiably killed by armed citizens."

Doesn't bode well for the gun lobby's argument that do reduce gun violence in America we need to arm more citizens to protect us from the criminals. More armed citizens doesn't reduce criminal activity as much as it creates more accidental deaths.

[superconnected]

48. Another good point.

[ManiacJoe]

71. You seem to be ignoring the self-defense uses where

the Bad Guy survives, which is a far larger number. This is an acceptable outcome as is when the Bad Guy dies.

[krispos42]

83. I didn't say 350 attackers were stopped by armed citizens

As I stated in my previous post, the number in various surveys ranges from 1.2 to 2.5 million cases of Defensive Gun Uses.

Only a handful of the times did the situation deteriorate from there to gunfire, and only a handful of THOSE times did the attacker die.

Criminals kill because they enjoy killing, or simply don't care. Intended victims kill because they have no other choice.

[superconnected]

46. Good points, good post.

[krispos42]

84. Thanks!

[Doremus]

20. Perhaps soon to be 270 million and two.

I've never been a "gun person." When I had small kids the idea of keeping a firearm in the house seemed like asking for trouble. I know a lot of people do so safely, but it wasn't something *I* felt comfortable with. Neither my husband nor I are hunters and taking target practice wasn't a pasttime we found particularly entertaining.

Those things are still true (except my kids are grown now). Yet we're thinking seriously about getting guns and learning how to use them.

The Bush junta has given us a new appreciation for the wisdoms contained in the various documents penned by our forebears, particularly the words about the importance of an armed citizenry. Tell the truth, I probably could never shoot another person (or animal for that matter), but if the threat of millions of us packing heat is enough to give the power-hungry madmen a moment's pause, then to NOT do so seems like asking for trouble. Flame me if you are so inclined, but our founding fathers were no slouches. A citizenry with no weapons is a dictatorship-in-waiting.

[dmallind]

24. Same thing here just a few years earlier than you.

Take a training course (several in fact!). Scout out for a range that isn't too overpopulate with wackjobs (normal people do indeed own guns, but trust me so do a bunch of camo-clad rugged individualist armchair warriors - be prepared to ignore/put up with them). Practice - as much as you can afford. Always but always remember the 4 rules.

Try out many guns and find the one that fits and points naturally for you. Don't be automatically swayed by the near-ubiquitous advice tyhat you start with a revolver - try both at a rental range and see which you prefer. I'm much happier with semi-auto, and much more competent too.

Come on in - the water's a bit polluted by nugentites at times, but it's fine overall.

[Doremus]

65. Thank you, dmallind.

Being a neophyte to weapons, I welcome and appreciate your excellent suggestions.



:hi:

[marions ghost]

35. No flames but ...

I can understand getting a gun if you fear being robbed in a nation with so many guns, but it's just hogwash to think a "citizenry" needs guns to protect itself from the government.

Romantic ideas of the "founding fathers' defending their homesteads are kinda out-of-date.

It's just "feel better" false security.

[Doremus]

64. No doubt you're right.

On second thought, let me restate that.

I sincerely *hope* you're right. :(

[ProudDad]

31. Gee, no wonder

the U.S. also has the highest rate of gun deaths by far...


Watch out! You've posted grist for the slime from the gungeon :hide:

[krispos42]

37. Care to retract your statement?

Crime Statistics > Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (Latest available) by country

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

boldface mine

Crime Statistics > Statistics > Murders with firearms (Latest available) by country

#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 8,259
#5 Mexico: 3,589
#6 Zimbabwe: 598
#7 Germany: 384
#8 Belarus: 331
#9 Czech Republic: 213
#10 Ukraine: 173

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

boldface mine

Of course, a lot of countries don't report numbers, but that's what's available.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. You Think Making the Top 10 is Something to be Proud Of?

I'm amused that you think you're making ground with your position by quoting those statistics.

[krispos42]

85. I did not say I was proud. I said he was wrong. And he is. n/t

[superconnected]

49. Um being up there with third world countries is not good.

[krispos42]

86. No, it is not.

Which is why I'd like to see some improvement on the numbers. But we're not going to get any progress if we still have things like free trade and globalization, union-busting, illegal drugs, and private health care.

All of this destroys the middle class, pushing more people into the ragged edge of poverty. And poverty is the root of a lot of the crime in this country.

[superconnected]

107. You are correct, but only regarding the little people.

We must remember that the big crime where most of the money gets stolen, happens from the rich who already have money. They are also responsible for the most deaths - be it pushing deadly drugs passed by payola to drugtesting companies, or resultant deaths of particles their plants are spewing into the air or poisioning our water with that they could not be putting out but paid politicians to stop legslation requiring they filter what they put out to the environment and handle dangerous waste responsibly.

The violent crime can go both ways. I'm convinced the rich instill it as much as the poor. I think an extremely rich man is more likely to have someone killed than an extremely poor person with a gruge. But that's just my opinion.

Random crime and street crime fits the scenario of poverty creating crime.

But really, most impoverished people who would rob, still wouldn't kill hundreds or thousands to make a buck. Street criminals usually aren't mass murderers. That takes the wealthy. I think street criminals usually don't have policys that kill anyway, they are mostly petty thieves.

[ProudDad]

50. WOW

We're better than:

South Africa, Colombia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Belarus and Costa Rica!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:


and not only that we've got the biggest, most expensive fucking military in the world, can't tame Iraq or Afghanistan, and we're number 37 in health care!!!!


:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[krispos42]

87. You summed the problem up nicely

We don't treat the poor, so a disproportionally large percent of them have untreated medical conditions and/or drug abuse, which limits their ability to learn and to work, and thus advancement, pushing them towards the easy money and status of a gang member.

We choose to spend $600,000,000,000 a year instead on what is essentially corporate welfare for defense contractors. If you haven't read this yet, get a barf bucket and a punching bag and read it:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle





These Eisenhower quotes are very good.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

-President Eisenhower, 4/16/1953



Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

-President Eisenhower, 11/8/1954

[treestar]

40. OK, so it follows we should be the safest country in the world, right?

:sarcasm:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. GUNS DON'T PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: EXHIBIT A

Thanks for posting this link.

What's clear is that having more guns doesn't mean we have less crime as so many gun advocates have argued.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

63. And less guns does not equal less crime as the gun grabbers claim either -nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. The Experience of Other Countries Not Withstanding

The Experience of Other Countries Not Withstanding

[Javaman]

53. I don't have any guns, does this mean someone else has 180? nt

[Lorien]

56. Hey, I know a few paranoid delusional thumb sucking bed wetters

with their own personal arsenals. One of them was robbed a few years ago-including his stockpile of weapons. He and his family weren't home at the time. Woo-hoo, boy, did all those firearms keep him safe! Now they are all in the hands of a criminal. Brilliant!

[Man_in_the_Moon]

62. Snort! -nt

[Throd]

78. Yes, that would be my Uncle Dennis.

[Igel]

54. Link to actual report is here:

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/yearb2007.html

Useful data, but I'm not sure what it's useful for. It certainly doesn't shed much light on most of the arguments we're familiar with, except in the most general ways. It ignores a fair number of distinctions that are typically made in the US, such as kind of weapon and most likely use.

For example: The data merges military assault weapons that are illegal in the US without a special and difficult-to-obtain permit, handguns that can readily be permitted in most jurisdictions, hunting rifles and shotguns that typically need no permit to own and use, and target pistols. Now, you can kill with any of them, but most shotguns don't kill, fewer target pistols kill. It merges my old roommate's shotgun with the gun that the policeman I saw on the way home carries, since both are 'civilian' as opposed to military. It doesn't count guns that are carried as a result of the possessor's membership in a military reserve.

Then there are countries where semi-automatic and automatic weapons aren't uncommon, and both are civilian. Would you rather be up against a .22 pistol or an AK-47? They're all "civilian", but apples and oranges are both fruit

Now, the authors admit a fair number of problems--trying to infer the number of firearms in use, for example. Attempting to infer the numbers for each category would be a nightmare and reduce the statistical confidence in the numbers. But the numbers should be used with an awareness of what they are.

[Beausoir]

55. Disgusting.

[backscatter712]

59. This is bad for what reason?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

61. I am proud to pull up the average of everyone else.

At last inventory, a couple of months back, I had 13 title 2 (full-autos, destructive devices, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs) weapons, and 186 Title 1 long guns (rifles and shotguns), and 24 title 1 handguns.

Since then some more have come, and a couple have left...

[macllyr]

95. I recognized you !

Are you Burt Gummer, the Graboid/Shrieker hunter from the Tremors series ?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

116. Bah

That man is an amateur...........

[benEzra]

68. About half of gun owners are Dems and indies...

and around a quarter of Dems and indies personally own a gun, according to Gallup.

There is undoubtedly a bit of selection bias in the following poll, but I thought it was interesting...



My wife and I own a pair of 9mm pistols and 7.62x39mm rifles between us, plus some antiques. Not a large collection, but a decently well rounded one. Like most gun owners, we are nonhunters.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[Festivito]

69. Good. Keep the government fearing US, rather than US fearing gov.

US fearing government is tyranny.

All freedoms are unsafe.
But, we're less safe without them.

[ejbrush]

70. 90 per 100? That's only .9 firearms per person on average.

Well, I imagine only somebody who grew up in a rural background will understand my eventual point, but I put it out here for everyone.
Right now, I own eleven firearms, accounting for 10 non-firearm owning citizens. ELEVEN GUNS! What kind of whack-job owns ELEVEN GUNS?
Well, here's how I came across them. One is my deer rifle, which belonged to my great uncle and was handed down. A good man, grew up deaf and mute in the 1930's and 1940's, became a cabinet maker and guide down on the Florida Keys. From him I also inheireted a .22 target rifle and a .22 pistol, which he carried on his boat. Pretty corroded from the salt water, but the story goes it was useful for dealing with sharks.
Then there is the shotgun I inheireted from my grandfather, which is one of those SUPER-DEADLY SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons people go on about. It was made in 1924, and is the darling of the trap range here. I also inheireted a .38 revolver from him, that he kept in his nightstand for 70 years, without any accidents.
Now, when I turned 12, my dad gave me his first shotgun, which he bought when he was 12. I use that one for hunting grouse. One year for christmas, he gave both me and my brother matching .22 rifles.
Personally, I have purchased four rifles in the last few years. Two are Swiss service rifles from the last century, which are just so mechanically intruiging that I couldn't pass them up. One is a British service rifle from WWI, and one is a Russian service rifle from the same era. Yep, military-style hardware.
So, that's eleven guns. So far, none have accidentally shot anyone. None have been used to commit any crime to speak of, though grand-dad may or may not have poached some deer back in the 1930's. They live in the safe, and get taken out for cleaning and use now and then, the target rifle and the trap gun more often than the others. And, when the day comes that my other grandfather passes, the number will likely increase by four, and when my father passes by a similar number.
My rambling point is that not every gun owner scurries around hoarding faux assault rifles. Fact is, I can't think of one right now, and I belong to a gun club. But they all own multiple guns, and a lot of them came into them just like I did. And I tell you this, there is not one, not one including myself, who would willingly part with their grandpa's deer rifle, or the shotgun their dad gave them for christmas, or the pistol their uncle brought back from France after the war. They have become heirlooms, and their value is an emotional one. It is not a deviant emotion, to attach memories of people and places and events to physical objects, is it? I keep a clunky, broken Kiev camera on the shelf because it reminds me of doing archaelogy in Belize years ago. I have the ticket stub to my high-shool prom. I have the poem my fiance wrote me when we started dating. I have the cigarette-lighter out of my first car. All these are attached to memories, the guns are too. Good memories, postive memories of people gone now, places that have disappeared to development and greed.
Are they dangerous? Fuck yeah, they're dangerous, their weapons for cryin' out loud. But so is my chainsaw, and I've seen more people hurt by chainsaws than by guns. I've known a kid who commited suicide with a gun - and two other people (both hunters, BTW) who used the car exhaust. Whose death is more tragic?

[Squatch]

73. For all you DUers who don't have guns...

don't worry, I have enough for at least 11 of you. :)

[Zavulon]

114. I'll cover eight more. (NT)

[leaninglib]

74. Well, we are the freest nation in the world...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

77. depends on who you are. n/t

[MisterP]

75. an almost perfected regime of MAD: Stanislaw Lem called it "Procrustics"

and tied it to the self-censorship you saw in the USSR--for you see, the people were not so much policed as they policed themselves into silence

[-..__...]

91. Damn!

No wonder the cost of ammo keeps going up and is getting harder to find.

:-(

[The Stranger]

92. Gonzales resigns and there is one hint of hope, but DU descends into flame war over wedge issues.

Nice going.

[DFW]

103. We're Number One

Hooray.

Declare a national hiliday and mint a special commemorative silver dollar.