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

And their is something to defend against; invasion and tyranny. An armed populace is much better at keeping them government in check then anything else.

Which is my point.

That we have not changed our government to such a point that we no longer need
to keep guns en masse against the government.

Case in point, look at the Netherlands, they voted to ban civil ownership of guns,
and yet they are among the top five most free countries in the world, and concurrently
score very low for the amount of government corruption and very high for press
freedom among other things.

wtf .im from finland and it said finland got 56 guns per 100 last time i heared about a shooting in finland was like 2 years ago and we got that many guns

reply to post by dahl


There are shootings in Finland every now and then at least yearly. But mostly crimes committed with firearms would have happened with a knife or an axe instead if a gun (most commonly a hunting shotgun). There have't been any random massacares etc. or school shootings ala VTech or columbine.

DARN!!

I'm killing the average...

I have about 20 or so currently and about to buy another...

If the Zombies do come, anyone that wants can borrow one of mine. I have some sweet shooters...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
DARN!!

I'm killing the average...

I have about 20 or so currently and about to buy another...

If the Zombies do come, anyone that wants can borrow one of mine. I have some sweet shooters...

Semper

Have'nt you watched the movies, shooting them only makes them pissed off.

What ya gotta do is a slice and dice with say a Katana.

I would rather they not get that close lol Though I must say that the idea of a last stand running into a horde of zombies hacking away with a sword is a good way to go ... i mean if your going to die anyway you might as well take some down with you but I would just prefer a gun.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Have'nt you watched the movies, shooting them only makes them pissed off.

What ya gotta do is a slice and dice with say a Katana.

trama to the head or breaking the neck
so one shot to the head they are dead or cutting their head off

havent you ever watched resident evil?

Originally posted by bodrul
What ya gotta do is a slice and dice with say a Katana.

trama to the head or breaking the neck
so one shot to the head they are dead or cutting their head off

havent you ever watched resident evil?

Well I mean the paranormal kind, not the scientific kind that have to follow natural
Human biology.

Bush needs to leave opther peopel alone and sort out hsi own contry, 90 to 100 ? thats stupidly high, no wonder theres so much gun crime.


Take Care, Vix

Originally posted by iori_komei
Anyways, as to the article itself, as much as I may believe in weapons ownership
within reason, like not allowing crazy people to have them, and licensing them,
I still find this disturbing.

Licensing them? Why? Registration is the first step in confiscation.

Originally posted by Vixion
Bush needs to leave opther peopel alone and sort out hsi own contry, 90 to 100 ? thats stupidly high, no wonder theres so much gun crime.


Take Care, Vix

Crime is the problem, not the method by which it is committed.

The article mentions only 12% of civilian owned firearms are registered with the authorities. 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?

Also, though it would be nice to believe that all of these armed Americans would participate in the defence of the Constitution be it by bracing against a zombie assault, invading Chinese or the refusal of a national ID card I am sorry to say that the number of Americans who would turn in their firearms to the first Guardsman to knock on their front door and demand they do so would be insultingly high. Just look at how many legally owned guns were taken during the Katrina dabacle. Sure the House passed a law stating this may never happen again but I'd bet dollars to donughts there is a provision in the Patriot Act or some other "terror" law that would nulify such protection in an instant.

And no, not every American willing to defend themselves would join the military. Not by any measure. The military is an extention of government. What use is it to join a military of a corrupt government? Every gun owning American should start by defending their gun, their life, their familiy, their land and if it suits them they may defend their community. Anything larger than that and you're going to find corruption and tyranny.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The article mentions only 12% of civilian owned firearms are registered with the authorities. 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?

I agree with the rest of your post, I just thought I would add this:

Registration isn't required in every state. For example: Arizona doesn't require any registration, and Nevada only requires registration of handguns, but not long guns. Many other states don't have any registration laws in place, so that is part of the difference in registered vs non registered guns.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Licensing them? Why? Registration is the first step in confiscation.

Because people can not be trusted with weapons that far.

Apart from that it helps in gun crimes in which the gun owner was not the criminal.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Because people can not be trusted with weapons that far.

Odd, many states don't require registration and there isn't an epidemic of mass shootings in those states.

When you say that far, to what extent are you referring?

How about government agents, can they be trusted simply because they work for the government?

Serious question: Since you seem to be a fan of big government, and nanny state type governing, why do you live in the U.S.?

Apart from that it helps in gun crimes in which the gun owner was not the criminal.

Source?

Originally posted by slackerwire
When you say that far, to what extent are you referring?

As in registering that they own whatever they own and require licensing, like every
year or so, just like with driving.

How about government agents, can they be trusted simply because they work for the government?

If they own private weapons they should have to have the same licensing and such.

The government should require all government workers who use weapons to have
to be checked even more than private owners.

Serious question: Since you seem to be a fan of big government, and nanny state type governing, why do you live in the U.S.?

I advocate medium government, not big government.
The term nanny state means different things to different people, so you'll have to
describe your definition.

I like, for the most part the system of government the United States has, I was born
and raised here, and I don't see the point in moving when you can just change the
few things one dislikes.

Source?

It should be logical.

Joe Schmoe owns a gun, it is stolen, the thief uses it to kill someone, the police ID the gun
and eventually Joe Schmoe, however because it was registered and he reported it
stolen well before the crime committed with it he is not in trouble.

Originally posted by iori_komei

As in registering that they own whatever they own and require licensing, like every
year or so, just like with driving.

There isn't a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to drive a car without infringement. What else should be licensed? Bats? Knives? Rocks?

If they own private weapons they should have to have the same licensing and such.

The government should require all government workers who use weapons to have
to be checked even more than private owners.

Why are you so reliant upon government to make you safe? Incapable of doing so on your own?

I advocate medium government, not big government.
The term nanny state means different things to different people, so you'll have to
describe your definition.

Why medium government? Why not small?

Nanny State- reliance upon the government to make you safe and make your life just the same as everyone elses.

I like, for the most part the system of government the United States has, I was born
and raised here, and I don't see the point in moving when you can just change the
few things one dislikes.

Few things? What exactly do you like about the American system?

It should be logical.

So it's safe to assume that yet again you have nothing to back up your contention?

Joe Schmoe owns a gun, it is stolen, the thief uses it to kill someone, the police ID the gun
and eventually Joe Schmoe, however because it was registered and he reported it
stolen well before the crime committed with it he is not in trouble.

Why is registration necessary? Simply reporting it stolen would accomplish the same thing.

Again I will ask: Do you have any supporting evidence? Perhaps some studies to show the difference crimes solved in states that require registration vs those that don't?

Originally posted by slackerwire
There isn't a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to drive a car without infringement. What else should be licensed? Bats? Knives? Rocks?

Guns are different from bats or knives or swords and such, simply in there physicality.

Why are you so reliant upon government to make you safe? Incapable of doing so on your own?

I simply said government employees who use guns in their profession should have
to be tested more than the general public.

And yes, I rely on the government to keep me safe from certain things, like the
ones that normal people can't make them self safe from, like foreign militaries
and terrorism, though that one everyone can take a proactive approach in helping with.

But on the level of things I can protect myself from, no.

quote]
Why medium government? Why not small?

Because neither big nor small government are the best.

And small government or Libertarian political ideology seeks anarcho-capitalism,
and I am against Anarchy.

Nanny State- reliance upon the government to make you safe and make your life just the same as everyone elses.

Well, that's not the definition I'd use, but 1/2 for the first part, and as for the second
part I support equality, not everyone being virtual clones of each other.

Few things? What exactly do you like about the American system?

The separation of powers, checks and balances, the bicameral system in which the
senate has an equal amount of representatives from each state and a House of
Representatives with numbers of Representatives base don state population, and the
election of those by the people.

Federal government instead of Unitary government.

So it's safe to assume that yet again you have nothing to back up your contention?

Not off hand, but there was something about it on ATS awhile back which I have no idea
where is now, so I suppose, it is one of the rare times I don't have evidence on hand.

Why is registration necessary? Simply reporting it stolen would accomplish the same thing.

If there was no registration, than a person can just say it was stolen and commit the
crime themselves.

reply to post by slackerwire


I never meant insinuate that registration should be done or anything like that. Just wondering where and how the surveyors got their numbers if there wasnt some tidy list for them to look up.

Personally I think registration is A) useless as reports of theft can be false and ballistic fingerprinting can be nullified by a 30 second barrel change and B) it is certainly is the first step to confiscation.

Besides, when has a crack pusher or murderer ever bothered to register their firearm in states in which it is required?

Originally posted by iori_komei
If there was no registration, than a person can just say it was stolen and commit the
crime themselves.

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.