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

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
So how does a registration prevent that?

Say I have a registered gun, I call it in stolen, 3 weeks later I shoot someone with it and chuck it in the river.

It does'nt prevent it 100%, but it does make it much more difficult than with no registration.

I should have gone with my gut feeling and added that part when I said that,
since I did think of that.

am i allowed to cry now and play mod about this thread being off topic?

anyway, i too am throwing the averages off. i only have 8 measly guns......what am i to do?

some states have to register your handuns but not in others...then, if you go to a gun show or something, you have to go through the check but it does not get registered.

this is how i protect my home...can't trust/rely on the gov/cops to do it...so, i have to arm myself and put the matter in my own hands.

where did china invading come into play?

if the chinese invaded would i join a militia?
NOPE

All these weapons won't be of much use against an invading Army or a corrupt government unless individuals who own them large supplies of ammo to go with them.

Most of the guys I hunt with keep a relatively modest supply of ammo on hand. Certainly not enough to fend off a well supplied military force for any length of time. The Ruby Ridge incident is a good example of this. These guys were armed to the teeth but in the end they were not able to successfully resist the Govermnets efforts to apprehend them.

I think that is an example of what would happen if a National crisis took place that caused people to lock & load.

In a National crisis it would not take long for the stores to be sold out of ammo & new shipments to be intercepted.

Ther are some who will be able to make their own though. When I was kid my dad & I had a reloader for our shotguns. He still uses it. But the supplies to do this would be limited or even unavailable in such a crisis.


[edit on 29-8-2007 by Sparky63]

I see people talking about.
I have guns I will protect myself blah blah blah.

But what's a gun without ammo?
I doubt anyone here has enough ammo with him / in his house to take out every single invader (in the case of a big scale invasion)

So where and how do they get there numbers? And do the numbers reflect inoperable firearms, weapons on display in privately funded museums and such?

The manufacturers keep a record of all the guns they have made, and distributed. This is where I assume they get their numbers for total guns in circulation, and then I assume they cull data from the major gun wholesale distributors which sell to the smaller retailers. This is how I assume a majority of this information was gathered.

In any case, I do not own any guns. I am well trained in them, and brush up and practice on different firearms every six months or so. My house is armed with blades and blunt weapons. I have axes, machetes, and a mace hanging on walls around my house. I practice with these in the backyard on a regular basis, and find it much more personal of a defensive means than a firearm.

I think the only need I have for a firearm is in the scenario of mass invasion, or if stability breaks down and the streets become chaotic, in which case I would be able to procure a firearm any moment I want either through legal or illegal means.

In any case, the firearm is the weapon of modern times, and you would be naive to not at least be thoroughly trained in this era's primary defense mechanisms. If it were up to me, every child in public school would begin firearm education every year from first - fifth grade, and proper training in middle school.


I just do not believe it is wise, nor rational to believe we should not at the very minimum, be fully trained in the use of firearms, considering that they exist in the world in such vast numbers.

Omega and Sparky,

well, duh.

If you own a rifle or handgun with defensive purposes in mind the minimum stock of ammo should be 2,000 rounds for each firearm. Keeping in mind that defending your property isnt like some movie or video game where it will be necessary to fire endlessly sweeping back and forth while yelling and tanks and bombs explode in the background. Looters and rioters will move on as soon as they see any opposition. If all out war were to break out than the average guy holding place in his average home would be the stupidest thing anyone could do. You have to abandon everything and get as far away as you can.

And the Ruby Ridge standoff didnt end because of a lack of ammunition. It ended because Jack McLamb was able to talk Randy into giving up. Never mind the fact that Randy and his family werent "stockpiling" for paranoid defensive reasons. They just wanted to be left alone to live their lives and for this the government shot his dog, his son and his wife.

Today I wouldnt be surprised if he was a paranoid stockpiler. He has pretty good reason to be.

If all out war were to break out than the average guy holding place in his average home would be the stupidest thing anyone could do. You have to abandon everything and get as far away as you can.

I do not believe that to be a rational measure to take. The appropriate course of action, if you are armed and wish to defend your community, is link up with the local defense forces and law enforcement, and develop an appropriate strategy with haste.

It would be everyone running far far away first and then figuing out a plan that will cause extreme hardship. How can you help coordinate a proper strategy and work together to defend your people if you are all alone in a rural farmhouse or cave sitting and waiting for the enemy?

No offense, that kind of sounds fear driven to me than anything else.

Originally posted by -0mega-
I see people talking about.
I have guns I will protect myself blah blah blah.

But what's a gun without ammo?
I doubt anyone here has enough ammo with him / in his house to take out every single invader (in the case of a big scale invasion)

back to the big scale invasion thing...
why is this an issue in reguards to this topic...?
i have 8 guns including two shotguns...i don't plan on defending this nation against foreign invaders..
i have these guns to protect my family and myself from people breaking into my home, and/or to protect of from the gov

i am not worried about fighting off an invading force of chinese....i will hold up here in my house with my guns and protect me and mine...i will not be out there patrolling the streets with some militia...screw that.

as far as how much ammo goes, i don't have 2k rounds for each gun but i am sitting on a bit...i buy a boz here and there too.

i probably have 100 slugs for my 20 gauge
probably have about 100 shells for my 12 gauge
probably about 250 9mm rounds
about 150 .38 special rounds
bout 100 .25 rounds

better than most, not as good as some....


so like, if this chinese invasion happens, i'm supposed to leave my wife and kid(s) to run out and play soldier against the chinese??
yeah, i don't see that happening......

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Omega and Sparky,

well, duh.

No need to be rude, can't we all just get along?

If you own a rifle or handgun with defensive purposes in mind the minimum stock of ammo should be 2,000 rounds for each firearm.

2000 rounds seems impressive but keep in mind that an M16 can fire anywhere from 650 to 800 rounds per minute.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee, A modern Crisis is not going to be like it was "back in the day" when militia men took pot shots at the British. I own guns, I have my whole life, but I am not going to delude myself into thinking that this equips me for modern combat. It's a whole new ball game.

There is no shortage of guns or ammo for that matter in Iraq for instance but that is not going to drive the US out. They will leave when they decide to leave, due to political pressure no doubt, but not because the civillian population is well armed.
Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by andy1033
They always say that they need guns and it stops crimes, but is that really so. Your country is crime ridden, but how can people say it stops crimes. Just look at the stats of violent crimes in your country.

The statistics show that everytime a new area passes a law to permit concealed carry of firearms, violent crime goes down. Most of us can easily figure out why: bad guy says "hmmm. I wonder if they now have the means to defend themselves? guess I better just move along".

Also, don't forget that almost all gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons.

And if anyone wants to bring up the BS about accidental deaths from guns, there's this to consider:

Doctors:

- The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
- Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (and they cause millions more with known-to-be-fatal prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries.)
- Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.)

Guns:

- The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
- The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
- The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 000188.

(Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.)

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."





[edit on 8/29/2007 by centurion1211]

Yeah I am throwing off the statistics too - I have about 6 pistols, 5 rifles, and a shotgun. Mostly cool military surplus collectibles. And I'm a commie pinko type to boot

This is what's left of my father's impressive collection (he was a lifelong Democrat btw), which was much larger.

Mine are collectibles & always stored unloaded. The only thing they're a threat to are paper targets and tin cans.

I don't even use them for home defense, I've defeated armed attackers before and never felt the need for a gun for self-defense. Where I live now it's not even an issue really. I just admire them from a geek angle - I like the high-precision machinery and technology, basically for the same reason I like sportscars and motorcycles.





[edit on 8/29/07 by xmotex]

I doubt that you can call that an accurate tota. You can't begin to tell me that Iran, Iraq are less armed than the US, you see ten yr olds walking around with AK's and did you see the footage of when they won the soccer chapionship? Even grannies were shooting off their AK's!!!

Originally posted by andy1033
They always say that they need guns and it stops crimes, but is that really so. Your country is crime ridden, but how can people say it stops crimes. Just look at the stats of violent crimes in your country.

You’re just jealous that we get to play with really big guns and you can’t

The biggest problem with the US crimes stats and other negative stats is that unfortunately many in this country can not handle the responsibility of pure freedom. Those that can handle it will prosper, but will also protect what they have with the same freedoms that many others use for ill will and not goodwill.

If you chained a dog to a tree with a 5 foot chain its whole life then that is all it knows and has no leeway to change the only course of life offered to it. If that dog has total freedom to run around or in the house its life choices are many. It can guard the house, comfort its human family, play with the kids, or work with the dad, but it can also attack people, kill the kids, sit back as someone robs the house, or just sit 5 feet from the tree its whole life as if it had an invisible 5 foot chain on. Given unlimited life choices doesn’t mean everyone will pick good ones but it does mean freedom is still there.

Originally posted by Xtrozero


The biggest problem with the US crimes stats and other negative stats is that unfortunately many in this country can not handle the responsibility of pure freedom. Those that can handle it will prosper, but will also protect what they have with the same freedoms that many others use for ill will and not goodwill.

Pure freedom?
In the US?
With one of the most controlling, insidious and manipulative governments on the planet?
And how do you account for this?

Note that the United States Code is a VERY large document. It is much faster -- and kinder to other users of the system -- if you limit your text searches to a particular area (Title) of the Code. To do so, go first to the listing of all Titles and choose the Title you want; then, use the text-search link on the overview page for that Title to do your search.

www4.law.cornell.edu...

If the US is so free, why so many laws - not to mention the pondlife they breed known as lawyers.

As far as guns go, my opinion is here

As far as the discussion about the 2nd amendment goes, I believe it is an outmoded document which has no place in a world the original drafters could never have envisaged.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.
source

So where is the need for a well regulated militia?
Especially given the power of modern weapons of war - you think you're going to stop a tank with a hunting rifle?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Pure Freedom? Where does that exist? Where can I go where I am not bound by the laws that others make to restrict my activities? Where do I go where I am not subject to whims of politicians who want make sure their name is attached to some new law or rule that encroaches on my "choices".

Even the high seas are governed by laws.
True some may be more free than others, but no one is truly free.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Sparky63]

All these numbers tell me that there are at least 1 in 10 Americans, that need to go out and get some guns.

Keep in mind that you don't need that many guns or that much ammo, to gain lots of guns and ammo in some sort of invasion situation. There will be guns laying around all over the place.

All you gotta do is gun down a few well armed invaders to take their AK's, grenades, and ammo.

What is important is that you know how to shoot. I don't mean know how to operate a firearm. But how to hit your target with one well placed shot from an extreme range. If you don't have a gun, and think you might need one some day, get a good rifle. I recommend a common caliber like .223, .308, or .30-06. Remember you get what you pay for. You don't need a semi-auto to be effective. Just get a Remington 700 hunting rifle, and put a really good scope on it. Buy a pile of ammo and a good cleaning kit. Go to the range and shoot until you can hit a watermelon from 0-500 yards with one shot in any weather condition.

If you can achieve these results, congratulations you are now able to cause serious problems for your enemies. There is absolutely nothing more devastating than a sniper.

See that just shows how insane we are. 90/100 of the registered weapons. Now we take that and look at that huge shoot out in the west that they have every year, the gangs, the militias. Thats a lot of freaking guns. Invaders beware. Oh and zombies...psh. Ill hole up in my local walmart. All the supplies ill need for a long time. viva american constitution lol.

Originally posted by budski
Pure freedom?
In the US?
With one of the most controlling, insidious and manipulative governments on the planet?

I wouldn't call it that. But yeah, plenty of people have really screwed up the government. It's still quite nice though.

Originally posted by budski
And how do you account for this?

Note that the United States Code is a VERY large document. It is much faster -- and kinder to other users of the system -- if you limit your text searches to a particular area (Title) of the Code. To do so, go first to the listing of all Titles and choose the Title you want; then, use the text-search link on the overview page for that Title to do your search.

www4.law.cornell.edu...

If the US is so free, why so many laws - not to mention the pondlife they breed known as lawyers.

You want us to have no laws? But yeah, we have far too many regulations right now.

Originally posted by budski
the rest

We don't need to stop a tank - we just need the ability to mount a resistance. Surely you realize that you must augment tanks with ground troops for them to be effective? And that you never have an invasion with just tanks?

A convoy with tanks CAN be stopped with just guns and homemade chemical weapons, but you have to have see where they coming and ETA, a good group of people, and decoy snipers.

I will not go into too many details, as I would rather save my information for when I need it, but you just need a bunch of abandoned vehicles all junked together as roadblocks for several blocks (even though tanks go right through em) a few good manhole locations, and some strategically located tipped over porta-potties.

there are a number of other things which can be utilized, but the mai concept is the convoy can be ambushed from every side and tanks taken down without another tank. In fact, the tanks can be recovered and utilized for your own side.

Well that is a good thing, and I have done my part