That data on civilian gun ownership worldwide comes from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports together with a Small Arms Survey research note conducted in 2007. Data is available for more-or-less every country on the planet, although obviously there is a much greater margin for error in places such as Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Syria etc. Per capita, American civilians have about 9 times as many guns as the worldwide civilian average. No other country comes close.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
That data on civilian gun ownership worldwide comes from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports together with a Small Arms Survey research note conducted in 2007. Data is available for more-or-less every country on the planet, although obviously there is a much greater margin for error in places such as Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Syria etc. Per capita, American civilians have about 9 times as many guns as the worldwide civilian average. No other country comes close.
I laugh at anyone who thinks their cute little arsenal of guns is going to have any effect on taking on the government. They'd get slaughtered.
Along with states with a high degree of illegal ownership like South Asia and Africa.
I'd love to see a war game played out.
Take 100,000 people that believe they own guns 'just in case' the government turns sour (despite the fact it is already waaaay past that point).
Give those guys 7 days to prepare.
It would be a 30 minute war effort. At best.
Not sure if anyone expects to win against the govt. though.
Its not like they will all get together at one place to fight a war. When the population fights against its own govt. its always guerrilla tactics. They are incredible hard to fight against as seen in many places Ireland, India, Russia etc.
Key qualifier was "War Game" bud.
The people that spout that kind of nonsense are not the people that a populace would unite behind. There will never be a revolution of the USA or overthrow of the government that's led by anyone that's ever quoted the 2nd amendment. It's ridiculous.
They will be going up against drones so good luck to them.
Well if it right wingers who revolt how many cops, troops, etc will fight against them and how many will switch sides?
Exactly, the days of facing off against the government one on one went a long, long time ago, but especially now, it's a ludicrous ideal to have. I just wonder how long it is before we start seeing these mass shootings and terrorist attacks carried out by drones? I don't want to tempt fate, but surely it's only a matter of time?
Why would the right wingers revolt? I cant see any reason for a revolt in the US since such armed resistance requires ethno-linguistic roots. Then again I am sitting across the pond and have no idea how nutty the average American is.
What I meant was that if some has it in their head that there will be a conflict with the state at some time in future then arming themselves is a reasonable action given that the govt is highly unlikely to use WOMDs on its own land.
So he looks to have used a bumpfire stock, so hopefully this will at least result in those being banned. Hopefully leads to a clampdown on anything intended to "simulate" automatic fire from semi-auto guns as well.
To be fair, there is the Civil War to take in to account. Many obviously wish that never happened, or the losing side won, and many obviously think it can or maybe even hope it will happen again. The way things are at the moment, you wouldn't bet against it happening. I think the US is more polarised now than it ever has been before, maybe even more so than Civil War times. The two sides are so entrenched and on completely opposite ideological sides. Unfortunately, the current President is just making this divide worse and more obvious every single day. You just have to hope the US has a Spike Lee Moment "Do The Right Thing"
You wouldn't believe how often I have to correct "we lost" to "they lost"
This divide is happening all across the world right now and I really doubt the feelings are strong enough on either side to cause an armed conflict. Its nowhere near a cause such as Northern Ireland, Kashmir or Kurdistan for example.
On a side note, even if Clinton were the president she would be widening the divide too. No reason to believe that she (or Sanders) have any intention of bridging the political divide. They loathe the conservatives as much as Trump loathes Mexicans imo.
Nukes. Drones. Full military. They're fecking retarded.
I had a women say....
Making people take sociology test before you let them gear up for a small war would be nice but by no means should you take away normal people's rights to own them.
Sociology?
And
Till the nuke drop's or something like.
Yeah guns socialism is gonna help and a machine gun is gonna help against a nuke. These are the people we're dealing with
A lot of them I know don't care that they'd get slaughtered and are consent with the act of being able to "defend" themselves. I guarantee most of these people don't have the balls to actually kill someone.
Just posted this to Facebook. Godspeed fellas.
My FB is full of random acquaintances i've accrued over the years, many of whom don't know one another, so I don't even bother.
Mine ain't. This should be interesting once everyone wakes up.
For the record, first response to it...
"#Wars_and_rumors_of_wars"
(Whatever the feck that's supposed to mean is beyond me)
I do love when people try to justify these shootings saying the common element is mental health, or the common element is this or that or something else.....they're called mass SHOOTINGS! There is ONE common element to these. It's pathetic when you hear, "I don't blame the gun, if he didn't have a gun he'd have a knife." Do me a favour! I'd take someone coming at me at close range with a knife than a psychopath hundreds of yards away with a gun.
The fact he was able to legally buy a modification which increases the fire rate makes me sick. Why do you need to increase your rate of fire if your intention is self protection???
The fact he was able to legally buy a modification which increases the fire rate makes me sick. Why do you need to increase your rate of fire if your intention is self protection???
Given the 2 important influences in this situation would be 1) the arms industry and 2) the NRA i have a question for our american friends here.
The gun manufacturers motives are obvious and understandable - mo guns mo money. So their position on this is obvious, but the NRA seems to be shrouded in weird attitudes about issues that seem extreme like campaigning for "open carry" legislation to be passed.
In "Bowling for columbine" Moore makes an implicit link between the founding of the NRA and the KKK. I know he can sometimes play fast and loose with facts, so is this an exaggeration? Was a small "gun club" taken over by more sinister forces?
If the NRA was just a PR wing of the gun industry it would be understandable. If they just campaigned about safe ownership / storage of weapons again this would seem reasonable, and match the gun policies in countries that have a history of hunting such as Canada, France, etc.
What seems to make the NRA so extreme is their promotion of intimidating gun use, open carry, availability of Semi automatic weapons and campaigning for silencers etc.
So is the NRA generally a normal organisation with a few extremists that capture the headlines?
A shady operation with a shady past?
Ok at the grass roots level but the leadership is cray cray?
Any views?
The gun manufacturers motives are obvious and understandable - mo guns mo money. So their position on this is obvious, but the NRA seems to be shrouded in weird attitudes about issues that seem extreme like campaigning for "open carry" legislation to be passed.
In "Bowling for columbine" Moore makes an implicit link between the founding of the NRA and the KKK. I know he can sometimes play fast and loose with facts, so is this an exaggeration? Was a small "gun club" taken over by more sinister forces?
If the NRA was just a PR wing of the gun industry it would be understandable. If they just campaigned about safe ownership / storage of weapons again this would seem reasonable, and match the gun policies in countries that have a history of hunting such as Canada, France, etc.
What seems to make the NRA so extreme is their promotion of intimidating gun use, open carry, availability of Semi automatic weapons and campaigning for silencers etc.
So is the NRA generally a normal organisation with a few extremists that capture the headlines?
A shady operation with a shady past?
Ok at the grass roots level but the leadership is cray cray?
Any views?
"The Revolt in Cincinnati" is what you're looking for.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4cf65c3ad15_story.html?utm_term=.c2a86966b546
See, you intended to highlight the absurdity of the pro-gun arguments with that, by pointing at something that, to you, is so obviously ridiculous that it should be dismissed out of hand by anyone possessing at least a single brain cell that is still in a working condition.
However, a quick google tells me that there are people who DO believe that since the founding fathers intended a well-regulated militia to be the safeguard against government tyranny, citizens should have access to all weaponry that the army can deploy. It's just that they are prohibitively expensive and therefore, in their words, not many are fighting for the particular right to own tanks, fighter planes or nuclear warheads.
Apparently, it's not even impossible to acquire a tank but it's quite a process, bureaucratically, especially if you want to be able to use it.
Anybody who doesn't believe that the gun laws in the US need drastically tightened as a case of urgency is a feckin idiot.
That's a bit disturbing. So in theory Joe Sixpack could buy his own warheads and start world war 3 all on his own?
Not sure how realistic it is but I don't believe it's expressly forbidden.
Could a Class Action Law Suit be filled against gun manufacturers for damages suffered by the victims and their families? Are gun manufacturers liable here? It's a bit different that a car in than a gun is designed to be a killing machine.
On what basis though? Unless they advertised their product as a fluffy children's toy and not as a metal killing machine, it's hard to see how they could be legally liable. Their killing machine performed very efficiently, exactly as it was designed to do. It did not malfunction, it did not have a defect that endangered the owner or others, it, presumably, was compliant with all the regulations imposed on gun manufacturers.
Surely you cannot sue someone because they created something that is not illegal in a perfectly legal way and that something performed its intended function.
No.
The right to keep and bear arms =/= the right to keep and bear explosive ordnance
This has already been done on the 1980s and 1990s. It doesn't happen anymore because the GOP controlled congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 which basically says that gun manufacturers and sellers cannot be sued if their products are used to commit acts of violence.
They followed the logic of... "you can't sue Ford for someone using an F150 to run over your [insert relation here]"
"Anytime you have several firearms and several hundred rounds of ammunition in a vehicle, that always causes a concern," No Shit!
Full auto Assault Rifles, no serial numbers . You'd think speeding is the last thing this guy would want to do. Either way he's now going to Jail for a very long time.
Not only that but they're implicitly stating that they're happy with the trade off in the lives lost to guns each year so that they can carry on carrying.
You can't have a nation with such access to guns and not have the corresponding deaths. Thats the choice plain and simple.
Did they win? Why didn't the Dems try and repeal it under Obama? Actually why didn't Dems put huge sales taxes on gun purchases? Do they get NRA funding too?
Because they sold a killing machine that killed someone and therefore should be liable for the damage? As an industry they cause the death and suffering of countless people and they should be held accountable for their impact on society.
Are you sure? I don't think that's clear at all.
Now, arms include those that are regulated by the NFA - but plenty of pro-gun advocates are lobbying for total deregulation. That would include explosives and other 'destructive devices' as well.
no one should be allowed to have more than a handgun or a hunting rifle. at the most.
no ability to turn semi-automatics to automatics.
of course stringent background checks
wont happen until we get rid of the Republicans in control.
This case before the Supreme Court about gerry-mandering may change things. Kennedy is thinking and May side with the liberal judges.
no ability to turn semi-automatics to automatics.
of course stringent background checks
wont happen until we get rid of the Republicans in control.
This case before the Supreme Court about gerry-mandering may change things. Kennedy is thinking and May side with the liberal judges.
You're arguing from a moral standpoint which I understand and even sympathise with but class-action lawsuits - and lawsuits in general - are built on legal grounds. Gun manufacturers are explicitly allowed to manufacture and sell weapons. As such, they cannot be held liable for crimes committed with these weapons. Much as, and I hate to use this analogy, Mercedes cannot be blamed if someone gets into one of their cars and plows into a crowd of shoppers.
Guns don't kill people. People who say 'Guns don't kill people' kill people......................with guns.