BeepOptical illusion
VictorHold up. The US has over 100 guns per 100 people? đł So on average, everyone owns at least one gun?
Close, but the best estimates are there are 470 million guns in US civilian hands. With a population of 338 million, youâre looking at approximately 1.4 guns per person in this crazy land of free-dumb. đ
If it makes you feel better, most gun owners own many guns, so there isnât actually a gun in everyoneâs hands.
Just a lot of them in a few hands⌠Much betterâŚ
Some people are collectors, but a lot of people just have some old guns around.
Also if guns are a hobby or interest of yours, you are likely to own several. Just like people who are into headphones, mechanical keyboards, vintage gaming consoles, bicycles, etc.
Just like people who are into sarin, questionably stored viral samples, bombs, gillotines, etc.
You can call these things âcollectablesâ but their nature doesnât change because you put a friendly term to it. It is psychologically fucked up to stockpile lethal weapons that can only be used for taking life without even having a practical application in mind.
starman2112Iâm going to push back a little bit. For one thing, have you ever gone hunting? Some would say that taking life (specifically deers and rabbits and stuff) is a practical application. For two, sport shooting is a thing. Being good at using a weapon can be rewarding in and of itself, whether youâre talking about guns, bows, slingshots, or throwing knives.
I was about to compare it to telescopes. Most people donât have one, most people who have one only have one, but a few of us have upwards of five
That dude would have been shot so damn quickly in Texas.
Most gun owners have more than one. If youâre a hunter, you might want to shoot different rounds for different game or seasons.
My state bans the use of rifles for deer hunting in most circumstances. In that example, youâd want 12ga for deer hunting, 20ga for duck, and 5.56 would be used for coyotes, boar, or groundhogs. And if you go boar hunting youâll want a sidearm (9mm or .45) because theyâll gore you if they get the chance.
So that totals 4 guns for a single person with decent reasoning. Plus, if you had kids and took them hunting, youâd want at least 1 more of each type.
And for people who live in non-rural areas, you might decide to concealed carry a 9mm for protection. But handguns arenât as ideal for home defense, so you might want a shotgun or 9mm carbine for that task, so thatâd be 2 guns for 1 person.
My jaw figuratively dropped when you suggested putting rifles and side arms in the hands of kids.
Gotta have an age limit on those things.
Iâm saying to hand rifles to toddlers, nor that the kids get unrestricted access to the guns. JFC itâs like youâre deliberately trying to misunderstand.
Where I live itâs normal for teens to go hunting alongside there parents, and when the guns arenât in use they are stored in the family gun safe that only the parents can get into.
These parents also teach their kids gun safety, and with exposure the kids know that the guns arenât toys to be played with. This shares similarities to how many European countriesâ drinking age of 16 removes the novelty and rebellion of drinking, generally preventing them from drinking to excess
I understood what you meant. No misunderstanding there. I do not think teens under 18 should be handling a lethal weapon. Matter fact it should be over 21. My opinion. đ¤ˇââď¸
I do not think teens under 18 should be handling a lethal weapon. Matter fact it should be over 21.
Cars are a lethal weapon, but theyâre allowed to drive on public roads under supervision before theyâre 16, and can drive without on private property. Kids under 18 are allowed access to cooking knives at whatever age, and should be taught how to cook before theyâre adults. Teaching kids safe firearm operation under supervision is useful. Not only that, sharing hobbies with parents help with communication and bonding, giving the kids a better support structure while growing up.
Your black-and-white mindset of infantilizing teens like theyâre completely incapable of handling anything before theyâre 18 is demeaning and ultimately damaging to society as a whole. It leads to adults whoâve never learned skills they need to survive on their own.
I personally think thereâs a distinction to be made between cooking knives, cars, and guns. I understand all that about cars and knives being lethal weapons too, but itâs about how easy it is to make a mistake, and HOW DETRIMENTAL it might be. And itâs about at which age you are capable of fully understanding every aspect of handling each thing, and the risks that come with it.
You could make the same argument about piloting an airplane. Statistically, being in an accident in an airplane is far, far less likely than being in one in a car. But if you are in a plane accident, the chances of it being lethal to everyone involved is far greater than accidents in a car, statistically, surely. Nobody freaking survives a plane crash. Sometimes everyone perishes even it if happens before takeoff. Thatâs why you donât see 18 year old pilots of passenger airplanes, let alone 16 year old pilots.
Knives are much easier to monitor and control by the supervising adult, so kids can learn handling them safely. Making a mistake is rarely lethal with a knife, especially since a lot of kidsâ knives arenât even very sharp.
My country does gun law pretty well, IMO:
Gun ownership in Sweden is regulated by Vapenlagen 1996:67 (literally, The Weapon Law), modified by weapon decree VapenfĂśrordningen 1996:70 and FAP 551-3 / RPSFS 2009:13. The police issue licenses to persons older than 18 years in good standing on the âneed to haveâ basis, which generally implies either hunting or sport shooting. Passing a hunting examination or membership in an approved sport shooting club for six months is required. Sport shooting licenses must be renewed every 5 years, whereas hunting licenses are valid for the lifetime of the holder. License-holders may lend a weapon to a person at least 15 years of age for supervised use.
This is exactly what I feel is appropriate. Youâre not allowed to have a driverâs license until youâre 18 either⌠đ¤ˇââď¸ And not allowed to purchase strong alcohol until 21, just like America. Should alcohol also be allowed to children perhaps? Like I said, itâs not about learning, itâs about being capable of determining risk and making judgement calls, etc.
I didnât say teenagers shouldnât be able to learn. But having their own guns is not an option IMO. They can borrow in very controlled circumstances.
I donât have a black-and-white mindset about it, just like you donât. But itâs good to have rules of thumb because society canât be run on a case-by-case basis. And thatâs what Iâll say about it.
BuelldozerClose, but the best estimates are there are 470 million guns in US civilian hands.
Thatâs the the lower boundary. The real number is probably closer to a billion.
You have to remember that untold millions of firearms were sold before anyone really started keeping track, no federal authority was keeping track before 1968ish, and that firearms will easily last a century if they are not fired too often and given even a minimum amount of care.
I myself inherited several pre-'68 firearms that would never have been counted. My 90 year old father in law has a dozen or more that he inherited or bought (western ranching family) that are still functional despite being manufactured over a century ago!
To put a fine point on the issue; into the 1970âs you could buy firearms off the shelf at hardware stores or even CoD via mail order. 470 million is a low number.
Good news: you can read a chart correctly!
Bad news: It seems that there are approximately 120 civilian owned firearms per 100 persons in the USA: 2017 survey. See particularly the âEstimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbersâ briefing paper and its annex. That seems to be the survey that most reports are based on. I donât imagine the number has dropped over the interveneing years.
Knowing the people I know, I bet thatâs much higher now!
Itâs that the people who own guns tend to own gunnnsssss. Like an entire arsenal. Most people donât own any.
Around 40% in the USA own at least one firearm. Itâs probably higher now since trump is back in power.
That is higher than I thought, but still not most.
Think of it this way. The majority of our gun deaths are from suicides, then the next largest amount is from gang/drug violence, after that itâs police (on average 1k a year) then itâs the rest. Meaning that around 4k deaths a year are from literally everything else (domestic/robberies/random acts). We donât really have a gun problem, we have an issue with our society. 99.99999999% of all firearms in civ hands have never been used to harm another person.
Poverty creates the violence, lack of education, lack of social support, lack of opportunities, lack of healthcare. If we fixed those things, our guns violence would plummet overnight. But the owners of this country would rather have us fighting each other than them.
With this logic, saying poverty is what creates the violence, and that the existence of the guns have nothing to do with it, should mean that of you removed all the guns, youâd still have the same proportion of homicide with knives instead.
And I donât think that would be the case.
Poverty necessitates the violence, I agree. But the availability of guns makes the violence accessible.
Both are problems.
Brazil and Mexico both have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Basically civs are banned from owning firearms, but their homicide rates are 10 fold ours. A lot of countries in Africa are the same way.
The guns are just the tool used. You solve the why and overall violence will plummet.
Gun laws are probably not going to matter if the guns are still available. You gotta get rid of the guns as well. And also the poverty of course.
But would you oppose my knife argument? Say there are no guns. Ever. Anywhere. What would happen in the streets? Would there be as much killing?
insurrectionsince you can't prove a counterfactual, we will never know
you can't know what would happen in a world where there were never guns. I'm not asking for anything. I'm pointing out we can't possibly know what such a world would look like
Gun laws are probably not going to matter if the guns are still available. You gotta get rid of the guns as well. And also the poverty of course.
Which will never happen, there are like 500 million guns in civ hands now. That box is open and will never be closed. And please donât point to Australiaâs buyback because only 60% turned in their firearms which at the time were only around 1mil in civ hands, which are now around 3mil in civilian hands. So they have more guns owned by more people since the ban/buyback.
But would you oppose my knife argument? Say there are no guns. Ever. Anywhere. What would happen in the streets? Would there be as much killing?
Same conditions we have now? YeaâŚyou do realize that around 4k people a year are murdered with knives/blunt objects right? Itâs right up there with the number of murders with guns that donât include gangs or police. End of the day, violence happens because our society is broken, not because of a tool thatâs accessible.
Do remember that we have no registry, which means that number is self reported and itâs just a educated guess. Myself and many others buy private sales. Iâve never purchased from a FFL or online. Everything I own is purchased from private owners in my state. I donât fall into that 40%. With trump in power, many new owners are buying locally as well and many on the left are now armed.
Some of us put ownership around 50% at this point.
bdonvrOn average yes actually
The truth of it tends to be more that gun nuts own a dozen or more guns which skews things, but legitimately iirc over 40% of US households have at least one.
There are plenty of reasons not to visit the US and this is just one of them.
Unironically, the average person doesnât actually own a gun, but the average gun owner owns several
