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

[Charon]

If I were to live in the US but did not own a gun should I then be labeled a liberal sexually inadequate wimp who is afraid of guns and begging for my home to be invaded? Just curious because that appears to be the generalization I'm reading here.

I have no issue with those who don't own firearms as long as they don't feel a need to take mine away. And no real concern over why they don't own a firearm.

From a home invasion standpoint such crime is exceedingly rare. But if such a thing were to happen you would likely spend hours praying you had one. I would imagine it is something Dr. Petit thinks about these days, and probably though about while he lay there helpless as his wife and two daughters were repeatedly raped:

The state medical examiner confirmed that Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, was strangled and that her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, died of smoke inhalation. The deaths were ruled homicides.

The girls' father, Dr. William Petit Jr., a prominent endocrinologist, remained hospitalized with head injuries.

All three women were raped, sources familiar with the investigation told both the Waterbury Republican-American and Hartford Courant. Petit was beaten with a baseball bat, thrown down the basement stairs, and then tied up in the cellar.

The girls, sources told the Courant, were tied to their beds and raped repeatedly, then left to burn after gasoline was poured around their beds and ignited.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/national/main3095614.shtml

Oddly, the media generally failed to include the possibility of owning a firearm for protection in the aftermath of this crime, citing instead such powerful measures as "planting cactus in window boxes." It also got significantly less coverage than one might expect for such a sensational crime, but then it illustrated that there are times where your life and that of your loved ones are not able to be protected by the loving arms of the government.

"But three people died," Farr said. "We're not going to say, 'Those things happen.' We've got to see if there is anything we can do that would reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future."

I have 6 158 grain semi-jacketed .357 hollowpoints that would reduce the likelihood of this happening to my family, with a little luck thrown in. But wait, isn't passive cooperation the  best approach... It is if they don't horribly abuse you and then kill you. I guess it didn't work here.


Charon

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Angus
LOL, I walked with a Garand for days. I walked with a Thompson longer, and the Tommy, although heavier, was easier to carry, once you got used to it.
( I am talking of 10-12 hrs a day )

BTW, The M1 was so nice to shoot, no recoil to talk off, and not noisy. But the Tommygun, ohhhhh...mama!!!!!!

Well, the Garand did have recoil, but it doesn't feel like any other gun I've fired.  


My father got issued a Tommy gun for a boarding party when he got reassigned to the navy.  He always has a big grin on his face when he talks about the recoil and firing it fully automatic.



And while charon is weird sometimes, he does hit a great point.  True freedom is true freedom of choice.  

We don't rate a person by whether or not they choose to get a fire arm.  We rate them based off of their attitude towards firearms.

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Curval
Your second (quoted) paragraph though puts you squarely back into the "we are better, tougher and more free because we have guns" camp.  

WTG

I'd say he thinks we're "better", because we have the choice (for now at least) to own guns or not, kinda like he wrote.

Originally posted by Toad
Of course I personally find it pretty nice that my decision to own or not own a particular recreational item is my decision, not the decision of some petty little perfumed prince that happens to be the local constable.[/color]

[Curval]

Originally posted by FBBone
I'd say he thinks we're "better", because we have the choice (for now at least) to own guns or not, kinda like he wrote.

Yup.  I'm in agreement.  I prefer the way you said it though to be honest.

[Gh0stFT]

i never owned or fired a real gun or rifle in my whole life,
does this makes me a less worth human being?
sorry to disturb this topic, but some statements here
are so laughable. I plan to visit the States in aprox two years,
it lookslike i can only enter it heavy armed to survive??

[Angus]

Laser:
"We don't rate a person by whether or not they choose to get a fire arm. We rate them based off of their attitude towards firearms."

The only difference on these gun-threads is where to draw the line.
Who can have a firearm and who not.
How you can screw up your rights to have one.
And what kind of firearms.

I am for instance, quite interested in guns. But I wouldn't want to hand out a Tommygun to just anybody.
But MAN, when the Tommy fires the volley. That is a racket!

[moneyguy]

its very cheaply made. not a piece that one would want to take to the range for target practice a lot. it wont stand up to the abuse. its small enough to fit in my pocket. thats why i have it. i take it to the range sometimes and just put a couple rounds through it (3 or 4 usually).

[cpxxx]

Instead of going off half cocked I did a search and here is the relevant article. small arms survey

It's only one chapter of the report and is an interesting read. I never imagined that 75% of all small arms in the world are in fact in the hands of private citizens althought the report points out the the United States gun ownership figures skews the figures. However I cannot find anything in it which criticises the US gun owning public. Maybe I didn't search hard enough.

It even has a case study for Ireland. I was surprised at the number of unregistered illegal guns supposedly in circulation, 150,000. But the next line is interesting in that is says the Garda (police) are only really interested in the 5000 or so guns in the hands of criminals. Presumably all the other unregistered, thus illegal guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens (law abiding that is except for having an illegal gun or two ) Actually I know for a fact that many people do have unregistered guns, mostly handguns and others which they would have difficulty registering.

It has been
reported that Ireland issued 209,000 firearm licences in 2004, one for every 19 residents (O’Keeffe and Hogan, 2004).
Unregistered weapons are estimated to number at least 150,000, and this figure could be considerably higher, for a total of
at least 360,000 firearms in civilian control.
Garda spokespersons maintain that the organization’s most serious concern is not traditional shotgun ownership, but an
invasion of handguns and automatics smuggled in from Europe. Of greatest concern are some 5,000 firearms in the hands of
criminal gangs (McDonald, 2006).

 

Also it has an article on Germany where it says

Although gun ownership is widespread, Germany has relatively little gun crime. Firearm murders amount to 150–300 annually
and suicides total some 900 per year (Cukier and Sidel, 2005, p. 35). Gun ownership usually receives little attention, except in
the wake of mass shootings.

That paragraph could have been written by the NRA and is a classic rebuttal of the supposed dangers of widespread gun ownership.

I think perhaps the news organisations interpretation is what is at fault here. To me the report is less interested in legal gun ownership in America or elsewhere than in the small arms proliferation among criminals in countries all over the world. A case of media manipulation?

Here are the rest of the chapters.

small arms 2007

You really have to be careful of the misleading headlines.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Angus
Laser:
"We don't rate a person by whether or not they choose to get a fire arm. We rate them based off of their attitude towards firearms."

The only difference on these gun-threads is where to draw the line.
Who can have a firearm and who not.
How you can screw up your rights to have one.
And what kind of firearms.

I am for instance, quite interested in guns. But I wouldn't want to hand out a Tommygun to just anybody.
But MAN, when the Tommy fires the volley. That is a racket!

Guns are denied to people who have been dishonorably discharged, most felonies, anyone who was involuntarily committed to a crazy house, some domestic abuse misdemeanors, and some types of guns to some types of immigrants.  You can get your right to own guns back by petitioning the president or your governor.  

Anyone over 18 can buy rifles and shotguns.  Anyone over 21 can buy handguns.  

The only restriction to what you can freely buy are Class 3 weapons.  These are most notably machine guns, guns with barrels shorter then 18 inches, calibers over .50, and cannons.  To buy one, you need to pay a 50 dollar tax (may be 5 dollars), but you are intimately investigated looking for any suspect reason why you shouldn't own a class 3 gun.  Once you do get the clearance, you are still checked up on from time to time.


Anyway, most liberals will have you believe that guns cause crime in the US.  Most conservatives are downright terrified to call out the real cause of the crimes.  Being labeled a racist is one of the most damning things someone can be called these days.  It doesn't matter if the person is right, just the mere mention of a particular race or culture being the cause of something is enough to send some people off the deep end.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Curval
Charon,

If I were to live in the US but did not own a gun should I then be labelled a liberal sexually inadequate wimp who is afraid of guns and begging for my home to be invaded?  Just curious because that appears to be the generalisation I'm reading here.

I wonder what Skuzzy's thoughts are on this...being that he doesn't own a gun.

You're what gangstas calla target

[bj229r]

Bet this guy wishes he had a gun.....


hopefully he wasn't a leftie

(They sewed it back on;) )

[Angus]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Guns are denied to people who have been dishonorably discharged, most felonies, anyone who was involuntarily committed to a crazy house, some domestic abuse misdemeanors, and some types of guns to some types of immigrants.  You can get your right to own guns back by petitioning the president or your governor.  

Anyone over 18 can buy rifles and shotguns.  Anyone over 21 can buy handguns.  

The only restriction to what you can freely buy are Class 3 weapons.  These are most notably machine guns, guns with barrels shorter then 18 inches, calibers over .50, and cannons.  To buy one, you need to pay a 50 dollar tax (may be 5 dollars), but you are intimately investigated looking for any suspect reason why you shouldn't own a class 3 gun.  Once you do get the clearance, you are still checked up on from time to time.


Anyway, most liberals will have you believe that guns cause crime in the US.  Most conservatives are downright terrified to call out the real cause of the crimes.  Being labeled a racist is one of the most damning things someone can be called these days.  It doesn't matter if the person is right, just the mere mention of a particular race or culture being the cause of something is enough to send some people off the deep end.

I think the rule up here is "anyone" over 20 with a clear criminal record, a course, and 2 qualifying guarantors and an interview with the police chief.
There are automatic shotguns up to 3" with up to 5 shots, bolt action rifles, lever operated rifles (max .22 mag), automatic rifles (.22 max), but no handguns or machineguns.
So in short, what you can use nicely for hunting.
You will need a licence for hunting, and perhaps a course for the bigger prey, as well as a MINIMUM caliber. Humane killing issue.
Above 3 weapons you need to buy and show a legal locker for the storing.
(I want one for christmas)

As for this one:
"Anyway, most liberals will have you believe that guns cause crime in the US."
I belive they have a point. With more in outr cirkulation at least, you would certainly have more corpses.
USA seperates it from the rest of the western world regarding crime rate AND weapon  ownership BTW. The difference is actually stunning.

[lazs2]

ghost.. the fact that you have never fired a gun does not make you anything except..

It makes you less experianced in modern history and it makes you unqualified to speak about guns.

It also makes you less able to defend yourself or others from bad people.

With any luck...you will never know how much of a mistake you have made... sorta like never buying flood insurance for your home.

angus... except for the shotguns...  the guns you are allowed to have are like training guns for children.   I learned to fire a 22 high standard and colt woodsman when I was 9 years old.    I fired a thompson my grand father had when I was 11... it didn't have any real recoil in my opinion.

I fired 1911 45's all the time growing up.. you could buy em for $50 and loaded mags for a buck.   I fired original black powder colts and remingtons and dueling pistols my grand dad had and a buttload of winchester and henry lever guns.

It is not so different today... you can by tokarevs and makarovs for dirt cheap and ammo by the thousand rounds...  we have surplus high powered rifles for under $100 at sporting goods stores.

This is good...  the more of my neighbors that are armed the better I feel.   I don't want a bunch of "reasonable" hand wringers and do nothings around when things break down as they do from time to time...  I want to shoot looters out from under their case of heinekin or boom box.

one only has to look at the real pictures of the aftermath of katrina to see how close to feral some people in the states are.



lazs

[Angus]

Lazs, you lost my point.
Firstly, a humble .22 is big enough to kill a bull.
Secondly, a .45 might not kill a Polar bear.
Thirdly, a .303 will.
And we are allowed to go bigger than that AFAIK.
For the Reindeers I am not sure of the minimum. It could be .223 but preferred is 30-06 or even bigger. I belive 30-06 is a common one, while .223 we use for sniping geese. (after all you want to eat them, not blow them up )
For Seals and the possible white and fluffy intruder (not common any more) you have very big calibers. I am not even sure if we have a max for that job.
If you call a 30-30 a training gun for children, I therefore emphasize that a single shot can drop a Polar bear. A .45 will drop YOU, but might not stop a charging bear. As for:
"This is good... the more of my neighbors that are armed the better I feel"
In my case, I am quite happy that most of them as well as most of my family are not armed at all.

[lazs2]

In bear country I carry my 44 mag.   Many carry 460 and 480 and even 500 magnums.  

See.. we have a choice.  Some don't always make wise choices but.. we have choice.

I fail to see why some of the guns you own are legal but some of the ones I don't wouldn't be.    I could shoot dozens of your countrymen...maybe hundreds with the guns you are allowed to have yet be helpless against bad guys.

you have guns adequate for breaking the law and for serial killers and criminals but nothing a citizen can use well to carry and defend.   Why can you own a bolt action 303 (the fastest working bolt in the world and 10 shot) but not a garand with it's 8 shot mag?   Why can you own the most deadly close range firearm, a shotgun, that any criminal can cut down to pistol length in 15 minutes but no handguns for citizens to defend against him?

what kind of thinking is that?

lazs