Gun owners in the USA

Number of guns and gun owners in USA.

"Most estimates range between 39% and 50%  of US households having at least one gun(that's about 43-55 million households).  The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those  that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or  52 million of American households owning 260 million guns)"


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America#ixzz21DQSKcrG

-----------------------------------

The NRA has several million members,  The real strength is in the actual number of gun owners,  There will no federal gun control laws past those now in effect.  pl

Comments

[Walrus]

Col. Lang,; In your opinion, would the presence of concealed carry firearms among theatregoers have resulted in more or less casualties?

People are already reporting all that "sheepdog or sheep" stuff on the Internet. My personal view would be that more concealed weapons would have meant a lot of dead sheepdogs, but please do not take that a preference for gun control in the USA.

[Lars]

Unfortunately for all those gun owners, we are getting closer and closer to a tipping point and when we get there all those gun owners will regret not having done something about making as sure as possible that guns are in responsible hands.

[Mj]

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Aurora_Shooting

[turcopolier]

lars

Oh, yes you are the Swede or whatever you are who wants to "hang" Zimmerman. I am unimpressed with your viewpoint. pl

[turcopolier]

walrus

I don't really care. We are not going to give up our firearms to please you, Lars or wnyone else. pl pl

[Poicephalus]

I am in favor of registering gun owners (a' la Illinois FOID). I never had a problem with any of my guns in the Land o' Lincoln (TM).
I currently live in the Land o' Rick Perry, and am shopping for an assault rifle (Kel-Tec RFB in 7.62 NATO).

I just don't see why it has to be such an anodyne proposition. It doesn't have to be "No guns v. MANPADS"

That said, Col. Lang's analysis is correct.
This too shall pass.
Except for the families of the slain and the community traumatized.

Peace to all.

C

[Walrus]

I agree it's your choice. I am in Two minds which is why I asked the question. My son graduated from the Police Academy Two weeks ago so I have a certain bias.

[Lars]

The only ones I have urged to be hanged are the casino operators on Wall Street and the only thing I have said about Zimmerman is to let the process go forward.

But I am convinced that if one day a majority of Americans want to make sure we make mass killings with semi-automatic guns a lot rarer, a lot of gun owners are not going to like what will happen.

I also think that they largely will have themselves to blame. It may not be a popular view but if they care enough about having guns, they might want to consider some testing of skills and motives. Before others impose it on them by popular will.

[jonst]

Drama, horror and tragedy, followed by farce, spectacle,and pontification. That is our formula in this country. Lessons will be searched for (there are few if any to be found), the same, the exact same, pointless questions will be asked. The same pointless answers will be given. The random proposal. i.e. gun control v. hand out the guns so we all have them. The politicians and Anderson Cooper types trying to milk the farce. It's all the same, every time. And then we go back to our business. (except the loved ones who lost someone...they rarely if ever go back.)

And then we move on till the next happens. And crippled legal system takes over. There is nothing to learn here...except how to deal--to the best one can-- with pain and madness. That's it.

[Fred]

Lets see, the linked reference reports 45% of US households - 52 million of them - own firearms and 1 individual killed people using firearms in Colorado so - all 52 million households in the US share the guilt of this individual's actions? Talks about collective punishment. When will you recommend restricting knife ownership, those have been used to kill people for thousands of years?

[turcopolier]

Fred

Unless I am mistaken pocket knives with blades judged too long are banned in the UK. pl

[turcopolier]

Lars

I have a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle and a .270 Winchester bolt-action rifle. Which would you ban if you were king of America? pl

[turcopolier]

poiwhatever

I am not in favor of forcing registration of citizens exercizing a constitutional right. pl

[turcopolier]

walrus

congratulations to your son. All experience here indicates that legal gun owners are not a threat to law enforcement, quite the opposite actually. As for your question of last night, it is a common canard spread by the Lars community that it is not possible to defend oneself with a handgun. nonsense! pl

[Fred]

Lars, please provide some clarification. How much 'rarer' than the rare occurrences happening now? Why would anyone unrelated to and hundreds - if not thousands - of miles removed from the perpetrator be to blame? A 'motives' test - imposed by popular will? Gun ownership is close to half the population of the country, whose 'popular will' do you refer to?

[Fred]

I believe that's true. If I recall correctly I'm not supposed to take fingernail clippers through the TSA lines at the airport. A pistol I can understand, but some restrictions and damned fool ideas.

[Kunuri]

I see the gun control issue not from the perspective of the Constitution or public safety or whatever.

Norway has very strict gun laws, but still vulnerable to a very determined mad man using it on civilians to commit mass murder.

Rather, those who can not use, or fear guns, or indoctrinated that they are only for killing other human beings, have an inherent jealousy and insecurity for those of us who like guns.

This had become apparent to me in my 5 years in Switzerland after many arguments with my friends and colleagues. To them, affinity with guns is maculating and macho, both are big no-no s in Europe. But liking to play with guns is not necessarily is a way to be macho or make up for some Freudian insecurity. Depriving those of us the right to play with guns is a way of emasculating us, since this area of endeavour is still mostly male. In my German language school I had an ongoing argument for a solid year with my instructors that hunting and fishing were legitimate sports. Protection side of gun ownership is an entirely different subject.

To be fair, I also met many mountain Swiss from the valleys who took their guns, shooting skills and their right to guns very seriously. But one will not see them in large cities, cool cafes and intellectual circles. I think everyone here knows that in Switzerland military duty is compulsory and after the service they get to keep their guns and maintain efficiency, certified of course, Swiss way. Then again, there are those who do justice to the myth "The bigger the gun,..." argument but this is rare and is a red herring. Would appreciate anyone to correct me on the type fallacy.

[John Minnerath]

The guns are evil, mean, and bad, and nasty mindset always comes out of the woodwork after an incident like this. Their opinions can never be changed.
It's always the "GUN" with no serious questions about what in the world is going on in modern society that will lead an individual to perform such wanton acts of violence and destruction against his fellow man.

There's going to be a great deal of shouting about more "assault weapons" bans, but it won't go far in this political climate.

For those from countries with extreme restrictions on firearm ownership, that's your problem, don't try and tell us that it should fit us.
As someone from a part of the US where firearms far outnumber the population I have a hard time with various individual State and Local jurisdictions can place onerous restrictions on their residents. Some reach insane levels. BB guns and sling shots even considered as dangerous weapons in some places.

We honest and law abiding citizens are as angered by things like this as anyone else, but simply saying it happens because there are guns out there is not an answer.
The nanny state and loss of individual responsibility combined with a political elite who seem to have no concern for those they are supposed to represent continues to give rise to a climate that creates these things.

[Dawn]

The Onion is spot on

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sadly-nation-knows-exactly-how-colorado-shootings,28857/

Just one thing about the Second Amendment that people tend to ignore, and which drives me crazy: It states that the people "shall have the right to bear arms," and I agree this is meant to be an individual right. However, that wording does not prohibit laws limiting or regulating that right; if the milita is to be "well-regulated," it is logical that the possession of arms could also be so.

[turcopolier]

Dawn

somehow I suspect your intentions. and what would constitute "regulation" for you? How would you answer my question for Lars? pl

[Kunuri]

What about gun ownership from a sports or hobby point of view? How far should that be regulated or restricted? Would words like "militia", or "right to bear arms" still apply? Why couldn't a well regulated militia be only on organizational HQ level, with the guns locked up in local arsenals, only to be taken out during regulated shooting practice?
If the founding fathers were here with us today, they would have changed the wording of the 2nd ammandement without violating its spirit. They would have stressed personal choice, how one defines self protection and that we are free to play and enjoy with whatever we want.

[Basilisk]

Actually, fingernail clippers are okay, and so are scissors with 4" blades. Knives still are not. http://www.tsaguidelines.com/.

[Poicephalus]

Colonel,
I anxiously await your post railing against having to register to vote.
Regards,

C

[Lars]

I have not advocated banning guns. I have suggested that those who wants them to prove certain things, like enough skills to use them safely and a reasonable explanation why they want to own them. I have stated in the past that I think federal regulations covering everybody is preferred to the state and local regulations now in effect. In essence, if you are deemed qualified to own a gun in one place, you are qualified everywhere.

I have also stated that if a tipping point is reached, there will be calls for banning ownership of guns and if public opinion gets behind that, it will happen. I am also sure many gun owners will not like it. Since the percentage of gun ownership has been going down the last 30 years, it may one day happen. Especially, if more mass murders, using guns, will happen.

You may want to be in denial about that potential reality but I still think it would be better for gun owners to be proactive and not hide behind legal constructs that can be changed in the future.

[Peter]

Mass violence at theaters is nothing new. There were arson fires set with the doors blocked to trap people, in the past.

One of my courses at college was law enforcement for game wardens. The fellow teaching was an active arson investigator/game law investigator.

My first question is how do you approach and deal with armed citizens who are hunting checking on tags and such. The instructors reply was not once when he approached legal hunters with tags that there was any treat communicated by armed hunters. The people who were dangerous were the hard core criminal poachers, and they were approached like any other felon.

As a firearms owner in California when I make a handgun purchase I have to buy or sign a document stating that I have an approved gun safe at home to store the handgun. California has very restrictive laws on purchasing guns, and not a day goes by where some criminal does not use a weapon to victimize a law abiding citizen in the area. Gun control is myth.

My definition of gun control is hitting what I aim at.