Topic: Gun Ownership by State (2023 Statistics) (Read 280 times)

I think it pretty much depends on the state one lives there in the United States which determines how easy is for someone to get a gun or not. There are states where people are supposed to pass background check and also have a waiting period of a few days before being able to retrieve their new gun from the store. There are also States which can be very tight in the restrictions regarding the handling of the guns and whether can open carry or conceal carry a gun. As far as I understand, conceal carry implies additional permissions and additional processes for a citizen to keep a gun hidden in his clothing for be used at any time. In the north states is the case, while in Texas it is much more flexible so one does not need additional permission or training to get a gun and conceal it on oneself.

The problem when comes to pointing out who is supposed to have the rights to get a gun and who is not, is that people who get guns to commit violent crimes usually have no previous record for authorities to use as a precedent for them to get guns off that person, that is specially true for school shooters, most of them have a clean story and when deciding to get rifles, and they get them all legally. In practical terms, it can be very problematic when law is supposed to punish or restrict people from having guns if they have not committed a crime before. In the USA convicted felons are not allowed to hold guns, for example.

it’s hard to measure one’s control especially in times where they seem calm enough what if they get under pressure and knowing they have a gun, they use it on someone? USA seems very lax in their regulations regarding gun laws they have department stores selling guns on the side where anyone can just go up to and buy a weapon for god knows what?

they should really reevaluate their laws considering the rates of mass shooting in the country

For our mutual enjoyment:

  CarJackers Get Swiss Cheesed by Victim
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/mLY40pILAWOM/

Where I live people get 86'd with some regularly.  Honestly, as best I can figure, those who eat the big one by way of a bullet usually kind of deserve it and on balance the community is better off without them.  Since the court system is largely a fail, society has adapted.

Most people don't have guns here because they are quite expensive and probably the leading scenario of murder is 'hacking'.  Expressed mathematically:

  (booze) + (farmer) + (machete)  = (dead_relative).

There actually are a fair number of home-made guns here and they are routinely seized, but oddly they don't really seem to be implicated in most of the fatal shootings that I am aware of.  'Here' probably applies to SE Asia in general.

Consider some of the best people who can control guns the best... the military soldiers. They have been trained to shoot well, to protect each other, and to maintain their firearms better than almost anybody. But every now and again we hear about soldiers being killed by 'friendly fire'. They got killed by their own 'friends in the military by accident.

So, who is going to determine who is a good gun controller? If soldiers make mistakes, anybody can.

Who is going to enforce gun control, and how? If police try to enforce gun control without guns, they will be shot dead. If they use guns to enforce gun control, they are fighting the thing they are trying to enforce.


Could This Supreme Court Case End Government Overreach By Three-Letter Agencies?

---

https://www.activistpost.com/2023/12/could-this-supreme-court-case-end-government-overreach-by-three-letter-agencies.html
What do fishing, Three Letter Agencies, and gun rights all have in common?

Well, thanks to a little-known case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, commercial fishing and gun rights are intrinsically tied together. The outcome of this case could change the legal landscape of the entire country when it comes to the ability of three-letter agencies such as ATF to make regulations.

To understand the scope and effect of the Raimondo case, we'll need to first look at two different things. The first is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The second is a legal principle called Chevron Deference.

Let's start with the Fishery Act, as that's the basis for this case.
[VIDEO INCLUDED]
...

---

Guns should be given to those that  can control it because anger can cause a man to use his gun and we all know the result which grave.

The Constitution doesn't have any method to abandon it written therein. The method is to Amend it. We have Amendments already, and we might make more.

Government is made up of people. When you check out the news, you find that at least half of the government people are using their governmental position to do criminal activity. If you don't have guns among the average, non-governmental people, how do you stop government criminals from simply using THEIR guns to make formal slaves of all the rest of the people? After all, without the people having guns, there is no way strong enough to take the guns away from government people.

Why can't the United States of America just ban the Gun Ownership act in the constitution so that individuals can stop owning guns and carrying guns unneccessarily. I believe the society can be much more peaceful than ever if and only if people will be stopped from carrying guns for owning sake. Since there’s no country run by human beings that is faultless, then I don’t think it is okay for the US government to allow the use of firearms by individuals, therefore, the Gun Ownership should be banned and all sold guns to individuals and other citizens be retrieved by the government.

Due to the nature of Guns, which are dangerous weapons, not everyone, have the psychological capacity to acquire firearms or go near them and that’s why we have recorded an increased gun related violence over the years. All these can be stopped if the goverment reduce that access to guns, regardless of the type of gun.

Alternatively, instead of issuing these guns to people for protection, can implement very strict laws against citizens who break the laws and ensure serious implementation of local police.

There are many 'neighborhood watches' and other similar organizations throughout the USA that are organized by the local police. These are the militias.

The Federal government is made up of people. If there were no people in government offices, the government could do absolutely nothing at all... being only paperwork.

So far, most of the organization by the people against government officials is being aimed at government offices rather than at the people in those offices. When it gets bad enough - like it is getting now - the people will start aiming their lawsuits at the people of government rather than the government offices.

When government people are ousted for not obeying their Oaths of Office to uphold the Constitution, other people will get into government who WILL obey their Oaths of Office. The Constitution will be upheld, and the people will get their weapons (arms). The petty crooks will be too scared to remain as crooks, because all the good people will be armed to the teeth. Corruption will be cleaned up.

And where is the "well organized" part is supposed to be applied then?
Because if the second amendment was followed as I believe it was supposed to be intended, then all people legally bearing weapons should at the very least be registered and receive some kind of training before being left alone to continue their civil life. The law would not also imply that by bearing arms the civil people are in the obligation to join forces to repel a foreign invasion to the USA?

I believe it would be unrealistic to assume the federal government would put in power of civilians weapons as big as tanks or missils. Keeping in mind they do not even allow civilians to bear automatic weapons/machine guns without proper registration and permits.

The background behind the 2nd Amendment was/is the idea that the whole populace is the militia or militia 'reserve'. So, being the militia, all the latest weaponry needs to be available and owned by the militia so that they can actively repel any invasion on moment's notice. Regarding their weaponry, this would not only include guns, but also tanks, bazookas, etc.... including all the latest DARPA weaponry and whatever other new-technology weaponry might be available.

It is a complex topic, obviously. I did not know we have people from Findland around here, by the way.
I have seen some documentary films about the lifestyle of people who live in the flatlands of the United States, in deep red States and counties and, in my opinion, it seems to be that the original purpose of the second amendment of the constitution has been distorted in the mind of many people.
We could argue that originally that part of the constitution was supposed to serve for people of the just-born USA to defend themselves against a possible English invasion, in the lack of a formal army.
Nowadays, there are people who bear arms and believe it is a God given right and power which is not supposed to be infringed, not matter what.

Some people in the USA seem to mistify the constitution and that amendment in particular as part of their bible, instead of words writen by human beings, like anyone of us.

Not true, 3rd of Finnish civilians in my country has a firearm (for some reason it's not in that list). People use them for hunting and sports. We have no fear from our government nor we feel that would would even need to defend ourselves against it.

Russia on the next door however is whole another subject. It's the reason civilians made hidden gun stashes hidden after continuation war, just in case if we ever needed resort to guerrilla warfare. Now we have way more efficient emergency systems with huge tunnel network system under Finland. We have been preparing since continuation war, since we knew we couldn't trust soviet / russian leadership.

I guess gun ownership creates feeling of safety, but in case war will happen, it won't be happening in guerrilla style, as we are highly organised. And like i said, it's not lack of freedom. US just likes to sell their idea of freedom, but usually people crying for total freedom of gun ownership don't even seem to know what they want.

i believe the homicide cases are results of making ownership of firearms legal

there are also a lot of cases of mass shootings in this country it’s truly scary and i hope the country reflects and acts on these worrying numbers accordingly



guns are so easily accessible that there are multiple stores that you could just walk in to and buy a gun

The crime rate in the U.S may be partially what motivates some citizens to own a firearm but I doubt it’s the only reason. People own firearms just cause they’re allowed to. If you ask a gun loving touting American on why he has and carries a firearm, he’ll probably tell you it’s his right to own a firearm to be able to defend himself from a tyrannical government which in a sense I find quite ironic.
But I agree with you that it would be a lot safer to live in a country where the civilian population has very limited access to firearms.

It hardly depends on the country one lives in, the traditions of that country and also you should keep in mind the general perception on the human rights of each country. In most of the west, cutting someones hand off because of robbery, would be considered to be too extreme and the capital punishment depends on the crime committed and the gravity of it.
Since this is a thread which is about the ownership of Guns by civilian populations, talking about Saudi Arabia in this thread sounds rather irrelevant, since as far as I know in that country people do not have rights to bear arms, unlike in the USA. That latter country is rather a special case in this hemisphere.

No wonder people in that country are mostly minding their own business and they are not as hospitable as the other countries are. Honestly, if a person wanted to see a lower crime rate, he could just simply go to Saudi Arabia because no one would dare to commit a crime there unless he is already gone out of his mind. Unlike in the US, the punishment is light and they even make it easy for a crime like theft or any robberies. In Saudi, that's not the case because they will gonna be losing hands once they are caught in such crimes and they will also killed once they kill someone. This might be a sound strategy but in order to preserve the good people you need to get rid of the bad ones with justice of course.

Comprehending what you're trying to communicate isn't that tough. Are you saying that a person can't possess a firearm license until his as accepted as a soldier or employed by the armed forces? I never agree with that, sorry. I want you to know that you don't have to be a servant in order to achieve your goals in life. If I may then ask, does vigilante that also possess a legally owned firearm with license Do they have a military background? The focus of modern life is money. You can accomplish everything you set your mind to if you have money.

If the country can allow their citizen to own gun, it means the criminal rate is really high. So, it's safer to live in a country where the country is really strict when it comes to owning a gun.

Have you ever shoot someone?

No, actually if a country is lack of freedom, most of people will not own a gun because the country is strict. Most of countries only allow their citizen to own gun if they have a firearms license and it's really hard to get it if you're not work in military.

There is a lack of freedom in some counties, which is the main reason why everyone has a gun, they did it for their own protection. It's not that they oppose laws; rather, it is the possessor of their government.

Since no one will claim a gun without a license, it appears that you highlighted the fact that each nation has its unique firearms and license requirements. Anyone who not does not have a license the is breaking the law.

I live in NJ USA.  We have the strictest gun laws. I own 2 guns via inheritance. They are shotguns which are the only bullets you can buy in NJ without a permit.

Do I really want the shotguns no but they have been in the family since the 1920's So I will keep them for now.

Do I think they make me safer? no not right now and they are very likely to never make me safer.