Close, but the best estimates are there are 470 million guns in US civilian hands. With a population of 338 million, you’re looking at approximately 1.4 guns per person in this crazy land of free-dumb. 😂
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 “collectables” but their nature doesn’t 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.
I’m 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 you’re talking about guns, bows, slingshots, or throwing knives.
Most gun owners have more than one. If you’re 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, you’d 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 you’ll want a sidearm (9mm or .45) because they’ll 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, you’d 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 aren’t as ideal for home defense, so you might want a shotgun or 9mm carbine for that task, so that’d be 2 guns for 1 person.
I’m saying to hand rifles to toddlers, nor that the kids get unrestricted access to the guns. JFC it’s like you’re deliberately trying to misunderstand.
Where I live it’s normal for teens to go hunting alongside there parents, and when the guns aren’t 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 aren’t toys to be played with. This shares similarities to how many European countries’ 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. 🤷♂️
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 they’re allowed to drive on public roads under supervision before they’re 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 they’re 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 they’re completely incapable of handling anything before they’re 18 is demeaning and ultimately damaging to society as a whole. It leads to adults who’ve never learned skills they need to survive on their own.
I personally think there’s a distinction to be made between cooking knives, cars, and guns. I understand all that about cars and knives being lethal weapons too, but it’s about how easy it is to make a mistake, and HOW DETRIMENTAL it might be. And it’s 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. That’s why you don’t 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 kids’ knives aren’t 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 Vapenförordningen 1996:70 and FAP 551-3 / RPSFS 2009:13. The police issue licenses to persons older than 18 years in good standing on the “need to have” 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. You’re not allowed to have a driver’s license until you’re 18 either… 🤷♂️ And not allowed to purchase strong alcohol until 21, just like America. Should alcohol also be allowed to children perhaps? Like I said, it’s not about learning, it’s about being capable of determining risk and making judgement calls, etc.
I didn’t say teenagers shouldn’t be able to learn. But having their own guns is not an option IMO. They can borrow in very controlled circumstances.
I don’t have a black-and-white mindset about it, just like you don’t. But it’s good to have rules of thumb because society can’t be run on a case-by-case basis. And that’s what I’ll say about it.
Close, but the best estimates are there are 470 million guns in US civilian hands.
That’s 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 1970’s you could buy firearms off the shelf at hardware stores or even CoD via mail order. 470 million is a low number.
Do remember that we have no registry, which means that number is self reported and it’s just a educated guess. Myself and many others buy private sales. I’ve never purchased from a FFL or online. Everything I own is purchased from private owners in my state. I don’t 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.
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 it’s police (on average 1k a year) then it’s the rest. Meaning that around 4k deaths a year are from literally everything else (domestic/robberies/random acts). We don’t 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 if you removed all the guns, you’d still have the same proportion of homicide with knives instead, or some other weapon.
And I don’t think that would be the case.
Poverty necessitates the violence, I agree. But the availability of guns makes the violence accessible.
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.
Bad news: It seems that there are approximately 120 civilian owned firearms per 100 persons in the USA: 2017 survey. See particularly the “Estimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbers” briefing paper and its annex. That seems to be the survey that most reports are based on. I don’t imagine the number has dropped over the interveneing years.
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.
This is from 2017, almost 10 years old. I’d be interested to see how much it’s changed, if at all, especially since there’s that 30% who could see owning one in the future.
Hold up. The US has over 100 guns per 100 people? 😳 So on average, everyone owns at least one gun? Tell me I’m reading that wrong!
Close, but the best estimates are there are 470 million guns in US civilian hands. With a population of 338 million, you’re looking at approximately 1.4 guns per person in this crazy land of free-dumb. 😂
Jesus Christ.
If it makes you feel better, most gun owners own many guns, so there isn’t actually a gun in everyone’s hands.
Just a lot of them in a few hands… Much better…
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.
I was about to compare it to telescopes. Most people don’t have one, most people who have one only have one, but a few of us have upwards of five
You can call these things “collectables” but their nature doesn’t 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.
I’m 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 you’re talking about guns, bows, slingshots, or throwing knives.
Most gun owners have more than one. If you’re 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, you’d 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 you’ll want a sidearm (9mm or .45) because they’ll 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, you’d 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 aren’t as ideal for home defense, so you might want a shotgun or 9mm carbine for that task, so that’d 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.
I’m saying to hand rifles to toddlers, nor that the kids get unrestricted access to the guns. JFC it’s like you’re deliberately trying to misunderstand.
Where I live it’s normal for teens to go hunting alongside there parents, and when the guns aren’t 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 aren’t toys to be played with. This shares similarities to how many European countries’ 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. 🤷♂️
Cars are a lethal weapon, but they’re allowed to drive on public roads under supervision before they’re 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 they’re 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 they’re completely incapable of handling anything before they’re 18 is demeaning and ultimately damaging to society as a whole. It leads to adults who’ve never learned skills they need to survive on their own.
I personally think there’s a distinction to be made between cooking knives, cars, and guns. I understand all that about cars and knives being lethal weapons too, but it’s about how easy it is to make a mistake, and HOW DETRIMENTAL it might be. And it’s 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. That’s why you don’t 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 kids’ knives aren’t even very sharp.
My country does gun law pretty well, IMO:
This is exactly what I feel is appropriate. You’re not allowed to have a driver’s license until you’re 18 either… 🤷♂️ And not allowed to purchase strong alcohol until 21, just like America. Should alcohol also be allowed to children perhaps? Like I said, it’s not about learning, it’s about being capable of determining risk and making judgement calls, etc.
I didn’t say teenagers shouldn’t be able to learn. But having their own guns is not an option IMO. They can borrow in very controlled circumstances.
I don’t have a black-and-white mindset about it, just like you don’t. But it’s good to have rules of thumb because society can’t be run on a case-by-case basis. And that’s what I’ll say about it.
That dude would have been shot so damn quickly in Texas.
That’s 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 1970’s you could buy firearms off the shelf at hardware stores or even CoD via mail order. 470 million is a low number.
It’s that the people who own guns tend to own gunnnsssss. Like an entire arsenal. Most people don’t own any.
Around 40% in the USA own at least one firearm. It’s probably higher now since trump is back in power.
That is higher than I thought, but still not most.
Do remember that we have no registry, which means that number is self reported and it’s just a educated guess. Myself and many others buy private sales. I’ve never purchased from a FFL or online. Everything I own is purchased from private owners in my state. I don’t 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.
Still an insane amount 😐
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 it’s police (on average 1k a year) then it’s the rest. Meaning that around 4k deaths a year are from literally everything else (domestic/robberies/random acts). We don’t 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 if you removed all the guns, you’d still have the same proportion of homicide with knives instead, or some other weapon.
And I don’t 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?
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 “Estimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbers” briefing paper and its annex. That seems to be the survey that most reports are based on. I don’t imagine the number has dropped over the interveneing years.
🎉😭
Knowing the people I know, I bet that’s much higher now!
On 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.
Still an insane figure 😦
Unironically, the average person doesn’t actually own a gun, but the average gun owner owns several
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
This is from 2017, almost 10 years old. I’d be interested to see how much it’s changed, if at all, especially since there’s that 30% who could see owning one in the future.
There are plenty of reasons not to visit the US and this is just one of them.