US citizens armed to the teeth

We got more guns than we can shoot? Or maybe not enough.

from JoeUser Forums
Inspired by ModerateMan’s article “NOW This one is guaranteed to blow your mind!”, I came across some interesting facts about Americans and guns while doing some research (I’m learning, aren’t I?). Did you know that the US is the most armed country with 90 guns for every 100 people? That’s about 270 million guns in the US at this moment. Wow, that’s a lot of guns; all thanks to the US Constitution and its Second Amendment.

India followed with 4 guns per every 100 people and China was third with 3 per every 100 people. Now, here’s an interesting question I came across on another website talking about this huge number of guns in the US. Is this something to be proud of? I don’t get it, why does it matter if we are proud of this accomplishment or not? Oh yea, did I mention this was a Democrat who asked this? Leave it to a Democrat to scream when they think Bush is taking away your rights and freedom, breaking Constitutional Laws and then turn around and complain about the Second Amendment.

So, why do you think we have so many guns compared to other nations? I think that’s simple, thanks to our Forefathers beliefs that every American should have the right to bare arms as the Second Amendment states; it gives the American people a check and balance power against the Gov’t. Something countries like China and India lack, after all you wouldn’t want to rule a country with an iron fist while allowing your citizens to bare arms to us against you? Add poverty rates to the equation and you get a lack of money and ability to arm yourself.

So, is being #1 Most Armed Country in the World such a bad thing? I think not, considering that it give the average American the edge against our Gov’t just in case they want to put themselves higher than they already think they are. I mean, after all, do we really wanna end up like China? Having even our Internet restricted just so we can not revolutionize against the Gov’t?

Funny, anyone ever notice how the Democrats want to keep you poor (because they are the ones who vote Democratic most of the time), dependent on the Gov’t and free of guns? Gotta wonder how one would fight back when you’re hungry, dependent of a system that can take it away anytime and unarmed?

So what do you all think about this?


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

US Constitution Wiki
5,125 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Americans are rich. We collect things. Thus, 90 per person means that someone's got a lot of guns. It's not something to be proud of, but it isn't as bad as it seems. I mean, once you're over 1 per person the rest is just gravy, right?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hehe, the way I see it, the more we have the less outsiders will mess with us.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, it's nice not to have to reload, just switch guns.

And I realize that it's 90 per 100 people, but still, there's someone with a bunch of guns for sure.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I realize that it's 90 per 100 people, but still, there's someone with a bunch of guns for sure.


Just ask MM, he'll tell ya.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

And I realize that it's 90 per 100 people, but still, there's someone with a bunch of guns for sure.

My Boss - he has enough to arm the rest of us as we finally get to carry out the dream of all Network Engineers - It would be a great job if not for the End Users.

(I can see that one being quoted by some

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
About 270 million guns... about 62 million registered cars and trucks...

About 29,000 gun deaths... about 45,000 vehicle related deaths...

Which is the killer that needs to be banned? ;~D
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The right to bear arms controversy will rage on for the forseeable future of course, dont see it changing any time soon. One aspect of it that surfaces every now and then is the need to eject an overbearing /out of control Executive / Government.

It was a very good point at the time - of course - but to hear anyone say this in a serious manner these days.....

It always invokes an image of the said stalwart of Democracy standing in the middle of the street brandishing his .357 Magnum and ten spare rounds in his pocket yelling "begon purveyors of evil". Watching him over the sights of an Abrahams Main Battle Tank 120mm smooth bore gun, is an incredulous representative of the said purveyors of evil wondering if he has wondered onto a Disney Film lot   
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
And even so, our murder rate was about one fourth of the Old Soviet Unions. And they had complete gun control.
Remember the lesson from here In Texas: An Armed society is a polite society.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
It always invokes an image of the said stalwart of Democracy standing in the middle of the street brandishing his .357 Magnum and ten spare rounds in his pocket yelling "begon purveyors of evil". Watching him over the sights of an Abrahams Main Battle Tank 120mm smooth bore gun, is an incredulous representative of the said purveyors of evil wondering if he has wondered onto a Disney Film lot


When you consider how many vets there are in the US... and the fact that guns are some of the least lethal things most Americans have in their homes... What makes you think any future civil wars will be Abrams Tank vs .357 Magnum?

N. Korea, Iran, Hussein's Iraq and Syria WISH they had the amount of WMD capable of being produced with nothing but what most of us have under our sinks.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
All those guns will keep the zombies at bay. Can't say we're not prepared.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"About 270 million guns... about 62 million registered cars and trucks...

About 29,000 gun deaths... about 45,000 vehicle related deaths...

Which is the killer that needs to be banned? ;~D"

Well, I've got news for you. Gun deaths are usually quick, and don't have time to go to the hospital. Car wrecks usually end up with injuries, and are transported to the hospital. Then, doctors operate on them, and they die. I read MM's report. I know what's really going on here. We need to ban doctors, not guns or cars. That would save so many lives.

(Not sarcastic.. facetious! So I don't need a smiley!)
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The saddest part is that no matter how dangerous it is (guns, knives, bats) or how harmless it seems (bug bites, fall from a bike) they can all lead to a doctor which it might as well been a gun.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know, my son had a tick bite once, and we didn't know how long it had been in there or if it was lime or what. So we went to the emergency room, because the clinic 'would not take new patients' during emergency hour visits. Bastards. Anyway, we went in to the ER at a Children's Hospital, and saw a doctor. I thought my son was done for at that point, but luckily, he just said it probably waasn't lime but that we could give him some meds for it just in case. Well, we got the prescription, and gave him a dose... then we remembered that all Dr's last names are "Evil" so we stopped immediately, and he's been fine.

So he survived one encounter, but I wouldn't chance it again.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I won't take anyone except House.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, House. The doctor that, even when he cures you, you still want to kill. Luckily, most realize he's worse off alive.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Featured? Nice.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't notice, I use the forums more often nowadays. But then I miss out on which ones are featured, and which ones aren't...

So congratulations!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
thanks to our Forefathers beliefs that every American should have the right to bare arms as the Second Amendment states; it gives the American people a check and balance power against the Gov’t.

So our Gov is functioning under the threat of the gun? Is that how it is supposed to be?

I thought it is a Gov. democratically elected OR ejected by the VOTES not a mafia syndicate installed OR deposed by the gun.

and the gun is now part of the checks and balances of the US Gov? not the Congress and the Judiciary?

Is that why the Forefathers put that Amend. there?

i think this is very strange and misguided understanding of the whole issue.

Do you realize that is how dictatorships are created? keep in mind that whoever lives by the sowrd ..... sooner or later will also die by the sowrd
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
the US is the most armed country with 90 guns for every 100 people?


India followed with 4 guns per every 100 people and China was third with 3 per every 100 people.


So, why do you think we have so many guns compared to other nations? I think that’s simple, thanks to our Forefathers beliefs that every American should have the right to bare arms as the Second Amendment states; it gives the American people a check and balance power against the Gov’t. Something countries like China and India lack, after all you wouldn’t want to rule a country with an iron fist while allowing your citizens to bare arms to us against you?


there's a simple explanation, but it ain't the simplistic one you've suggested.

what that stat indicates is americans are more willing and able to afford guns than citizens of other countries.


focusing on the estimated number of guns located inside any individual country's borders seems seems to have distracted you from a more relevant ratio, namely estimated number of firearms per capita. on that basis, according to reuters:

Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

you musta become very confused by this whole topic. apparently you've yet to realize this lil gem not only revealed your obvious ignorance of india but fatally undercut whatever argument you thought you were making here:

it gives the American people a check and balance power against the Gov’t. Something countries like China and India lack, after all you wouldn’t want to rule a country with an iron fist while allowing your citizens to bare arms to us against you?

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
So our Gov is functioning under the threat of the gun? Is that how it is supposed to be?


Funny how you people always take things so literally. What it means (which I explained already) is that it allows the American Citizen a balance of power in case the Gov’t decided to turn into a dictatorship type of Gov’t. This is not something that can happen over night but as an example the Patriot Act takes away a few freedoms that many Americans don’t like but there it is, in the Patriot Act. And yes, it should be that way. As you can see currently the Gov’t is not necessarily following the will of the people and if it came down to brute force to change that who would you rather have holding the guns? Just ask a Cuban, he’ll tell you.

I thought it is a Gov. democratically elected OR ejected by the VOTES not a mafia syndicate installed OR deposed by the gun.


Mafia, now that’s funny. But then the Gov’t does what it wants and I see very few Americans doing something about it. Sure, we can vote them out, but imagine if somehow they passed a law supposedly giving them some kind of temporary power over everything and use terrorism and a large attack in the US as an excuse to take away our freedoms for our benefits. Kinda like the Patriot Act. This could happen if enough people vote for it and with enough fear tactics, it would seem possible. These are just possibilities dude, don’t get your panties in a knot.

and the gun is now part of the checks and balances of the US Gov? not the Congress and the Judiciary?


I said it gives people a check and balance power, not that it was part of the US check and balance power. Jesus, do I have to explain detail by detail everything here? I thought you people were smarter than this.

Is that why the Forefathers put that Amend. there?


That’s not something I can say for sure since I wasn’t there to ask them and that is not what I said. This is merely an interpretation of it.

i think this is very strange and misguided understanding of the whole issue.


Hey, another right that you have to believe what you want. Doesn’t mean you are right, merely an opinion and I won’t take that from you. Feel free to create an article explaining your interpretation of it.

Do you realize that is how dictatorships are created? keep in mind that whoever lives by the sowrd ..... sooner or later will also die by the sowrd


LOL, dictators are not created by giving the people the power to fight back. How did you even come to that conclusion? Dictators are created by taking away the peoples abilities to fight back; this is how some forms of martial arts were created. People were disarmed so as to not be able to fight back against a well armed army and therefore forced to create a fighting style that would allow them to fight back with smaller weapons or without them. Like I said before, just ask a Cuban about there being weapons in the hands of regular Cubans other than illegal ones.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
what that stat indicates is americans are more willing and able to afford guns than citizens of other countries.


Isn't that what I said? Kinda?

Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.


Are the legally or illegally? because my point was having them legally as we do.

you musta become very confused by this whole topic. apparently you've yet to realize this lil gem not only revealed your obvious ignorance of india but fatally undercut whatever argument you thought you were making here:

it gives the American people a check and balance power against the Gov’t. Something countries like China and India lack, after all you wouldn’t want to rule a country with an iron fist while allowing your citizens to bare arms to us against you?


Hey, I'm going based on the article from Reuters. And this concept may not apply to every country. But thanks for pointing it out, you somewhat cured my ignorance. I never claimed to be a genius or a very well educated person. I go by what i read, research and understand. I post looking for other opinions and even errors in my views. So like I said before, thanks. Even though you were actually trying to insult me as oppose to correct me.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
and the gun is now part of the checks and balances of the US Gov? not the Congress and the Judiciary?


That is a riot. COngress and the Judiciary are PART of the government. Someone failed US Civics 101.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love the Constitution. I think most Americans like the Constitution. I don't think it's outdated, or a bad way to run a government. I think the government has just overstepped it's power, and that's why the government sucks. So we should all grab our guns, at least 9 of 10 of us, and go make them follow the Constitution again!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Weapons keep the government from being any more invasive than they already are. As A paranoid JEW I keep weapons around just in case anyone decided it's time to round up some JEWS, NEVER AGAIN!!!!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the US was the target of a mass nuclear assault followed by a real land invasion would you want to be trying to protect your family with a hatchet or an assault rifle. The threat may not be eminant but it is still very real. If the governement decided a state of emergency due to something such as terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the White House with ohhh lets say planes crashing into them. Would you want to trust your life and wellbeing to your neigbors? If a riot breaks out in your city and people are burning and looting your neighborhood do you want to be the one without a gun? I think our forefathers were very aware of how important and naturally innate the need to protect oneself is.