Take it to Heart Wussies
on 08/29/2007 at 10:01 AM
By Geneva’s accounting, we are good (2 guns, 3 adults - but third can’t hold and fire, sooo) but by Kim’s accounting we need another real gun. And after our last trip to the range when we took the .22 - I agree. I was shocked at the diff (Glock 21 is other gun). The .22s only use (now that I have seen and felt the difference) is that for one out of four thugs, punks and all leftist peaceniks - it would cause them to pee their panties and run crying to their lawyer. Needless to say, my hubby was very happy that I prefer the Glock to the rifle. It will now be passed onto the grandson - as it was given to my husband by his grandfather - I doubt his father even knows how to hold a gun.
I like it.
I’ll say it again, without the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment doesn’t exist. One very important point that the ACLU and their kindred, refuse to look at is that without the right of self defense and the means to carry that out, you have no rights at all. If you depend on someone else to defend your rights, then your rights aren’t rights, but privileges granted to you by the defending authority. While I like the idea that the police can and will help me in keeping criminals from interfering with my life, I also understand that if the government directs the police to violate my rights, they probably will. We must also understand that the police won’t always be there when we need them. If you are confronted by a criminal, even the most dedicated officer of the law just isn’t likely to be there exactly at the moment when you need him and that you will have to rely on yourself for your own defense.
I’ve long enjoyed the Mencken quote that appears on the top of this blog that freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. To me, these are all obvious points of basic reality that govern our lives much more than any theoretical ideal.
Oh goody! By Kim’s standards we’re set and have enough spare kit to properly equip several guests at the apocolypse party. But they’d better bring lots and lots of food. And beer.
The report, which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces.
Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed,” Krause said, attributing the increase largely to better research and more data on weapon distribution networks.
Good. Always glad to know the civilians have more guns than the governments. Now let’s get that ratio up to 6:1 instead of the measly 3:1 it is now.
Five years ago, the Small Arms Survey had estimated there were a total of just 640 million firearms globally.
About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.
So 650 million of them now, 640 million of them 5 years ago, but 8 million get made per year. Either the author can’t do basic math or an awful lot of guns are getting destroyed every year.
Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.
<i>Whoo hoo!
I wonder how many of these are plinkers.. A .22 can be deadly, but only if you reeeeally know how to use it. I am guessing that they didn’t count unregistered firearms? You know, the reason I keep a .45 close to me and a Mossberg 12 gauge where I can get to it?
How about the facts they report don’t account for the ratio of people living under dictatorial governments? Probably close…
Nice to still be number one at something that counts
BillDrew, that was 640 million TOTAL vsthe 650 million civilian now. I had to go look and check that data as well.
I personally think the data is skewered. Many third world countries seem to overflow with firearms. Look at iraq. The turds have no problem acquiring firearms.
We may be the best armed entotal, but even that figure is not realistic. How many gun owners own twenty or more? I know QUITE A FEW. I wish it were that 90 of every 100 households had a t least one fire arm, but thats not the case. With 12% of our population being felons, thats also quite scary, because we can be assured that a high percentage of them are armed as we sit here, meaning that there are more lawbiding citizens who NEED to visit Cabella’s ASAP (or sooner).
I support firearms ownership, and responsible marksmanship practice. I believe that every major city should have a public access range where people, tired of being victims, can go to practice on their close quarters survival skills aka backalley survival skills.
I take what Dr. Jeff says a little diffrently. The Police are not there to protect you. That would be an impossible task requiring three or more officers per person. Saddly, and I know cops hate hearing this, the police are only glorified reporters. It took me a lot of years as a cop to accept that. Cops are obvious most of the time. They ride arround in marked vehicles, wear conspicious uniforms, and are easily identified after any time in a neighborhood. The bad guys are not so obvious. Its darn hard to figure out who is going to comit a crime until they do, and with there being enough former bad guys walking the streets, the cops would be hard pressed to keep tabs on them all unless we fit them with transmitter collars.
Getting back to the reporter idea, the police need to be experts in identifying clues at the crime scene, and reporting those to the court at trial. They also need to weave those clues together, and weed out the dead ends to arrive at a suspect. Those tasks tie up law enforcement for a good portion of their day. ever see an officer sitting beside the road ignoring everything arround him, head down? he is usually working on a report, all the while using his ears to monitor the happenings with in the area. Its a daunting task. The bad guys see them and avoid them and go elsewhere to do their evil deeds.
Assuming you hear someone breaking in and call 9-1-1 immediately, it can take the law ten minutes to arrive. In that time you could be dead. Dan Wesson will protect you, so will John Browning, sam Colt, and a host of fine engineers who have designed your arsenal. they will do you no good if the weapon is empty, locked away in a remote closet, or if you have no clue what to do. be armed, be prepared. The only one who can protect you, is you, unless your name is John Edwards, in which case your wife will chase away the evil Ann Coulter.Yeah you’re right Jeremy. I got the numbers confuzzed. And it is very true that people who own guns tend to own lots of guns. I think that’s when we cross the line and become shooters, hunters, marksmen, or at least collectors. And I’d bet that almost all of the Only One Gun households never maintain the thing or get any practice.
Tying this in with the When Seconds Count post, I’d like to see every woman in America owning at least 2 guns, and carrying at least one at all times. That would take a bite outa crime.
I just counted and I have 14.
I am also stuck in italic. I will try to get unstuck
[u][i]No luck[/i][/u]My only problem is my guns-to-gunsafe ratio
where “N” is growing on a “as can afford” basis, but the second is stuck at 1. Need to make that a “2”. 
There. Fixed that for ya.
There is one reason and one reason only for this study - the communists, socialists and wussies of the World want very, very badly to disarm all but themselves. That is what registration and studies such as this are about. And as mentioned here, those who are outside the law - 1) won’t ever abide by any new disarming laws (pay attention liberals) and 2) aren’t counted into these statistics and registrations. . . Which means if we abide by this continued and continually escalating War on Gun Ownership - the only people owning guns will be the criminals and the government thugs both whose main intention is to make you and me a slave or dead.
That alone should wake up some people. But way too many buy into the dangerous and violent aspect of guns without thinking the whole story through. Logic, rational and complete thinking is the only way to deal with the issue.
We need to not work on the band aids of the social issues - removing guns. But rather work deeper into resolving crime, criminal behavior and workable solutions to those issues. But 1) it does nothing for the soc/com/wus groups to promote their agendas and 2) it gets to the basic problems with the soc/com/wus ‘programs’ and ‘solutions’ which are at fault for most of the current societal ills. Yes, right & religious societies are rigid - but they do have real benefits to allmembers of the society - not just to those who are running it.
And there is the real problem - the liberals are concerned only with their power, their positions and their gain - at the expense of all in society. And it’s risking America’s future. Not to mention the future of the World.
Our gun ownership is low due to funds - as soon as the money increases - Momma gets her own gun. And you know what - I grew up in a family of 5 kids - with numerous cousins and friends underfoot - a several guns (my dad was of the opinion to be safe everyone in the house should be armed) and until the last years - never locked (and for all my life at home, Mom had a pistol next to the bed) - no accidental shootings, no ‘playing’ with guns. We were taught from day one - gun care and safety. See above for the main problem with today’s (socially correct)World - too many in our society don’t have a clue of personal responsibility at all. And protecting oneself is the first and most important of those responsibilities.
