jump to navigation

U.S. Leads The World With 90 Guns Per 100 People August 28, 2007

Posted by Michael in Man Laws.
Tags:
trackback

This means that Americans have adequate firepower to conquer Canada right now,   even without help from the military. We just need to get organized so that we all charge north at the same time. The ten percent who don’t have a gun can make sammiches to feed us as soon as the war is over. I figure the war will take about one hour and forty-five minutes, so we should get started by 10 a.m. in order to not miss lunch.

GENEVA (Reuters) – The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

“There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people,” it said.

Also interesting — only 12% of privately owned firearms worldwide are believed to be registered with authorities.

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

Comments»

1. Pupster - August 28, 2007

*Glares north menacingly*

2. Enas Yorl - August 28, 2007

WHOOT! USA! USA! USA!

I am a little surprised though. I thought Israel would have the highest concentration. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Israelli citizens were required to have a firearm in the house. I guess it was wrong.

3. skinbad - August 28, 2007

Pupster is on back pills. Steer clear.

4. kevlarchick - August 28, 2007

I would like to have a few of those pills right now.

5. sinistar - August 28, 2007

WOOOO!!! USA! USA!

You guys got Allahlanche’d again, BTW.

This is good news, we should be able to repel nearly any zombie outbreak that we’d ever face.

6. doriangrey - August 28, 2007

Allahlanche’d, when AP sees that one you’re going to owe him a new keyboard and possible a new monitar as well…

7. TedtheFed - August 28, 2007

Just point the zombies towards our lesser armed northern and southern neighbors.

8. PatrickS - August 28, 2007

If not an iPhone, Dorian…

9. Faye - August 28, 2007

Power to the people.

10. PatrickS - August 28, 2007

These numbers include the seven liberals who got over the big scary noise they make and bought one.

11. compos mentis - August 28, 2007

This statistic is a little skewed in that those of us in the red states probably own an ‎average of three guns each while those sissy liberal bitches on the coasts can only hope to ‎defend themselves with a hot Starbucks grande and an ear-piercing scream.‎

12. macman4ever - August 28, 2007

WOW … with firepower like that, who needs a Dept of Homeland Security ? ROFL. But hold up a sec. I don’t remember hearing too much about our Canadian buddies lookin’ to hop the border into the US … I thought the problem was on our southside … or is this a home invasion thing by middle and lower class American’s trying to get some affordable healthcare???

13. daveintexas - August 28, 2007

What CM said. I have a tough time believing 7 in 10 Americans have a gun. I have no trouble at all believing a lot of guys like me have more than one.

Let’s see… 6 handguns, 2 shotguns, a rifle and a commie SKS.

Is that everything?

14. TBinSTL - August 28, 2007

I’m reading this as less than 1 gun per citizen…..that is totally unaceptable! Maybe we need a “Be a good neighbor, buy him a gun” week or something!

15. Peggy Archer - August 28, 2007

Hey, compos mentis – I’m one of those sissy liberal bitches on a coast and I happen to own FOUR guns (admittedly, three of them are very old and delicate so I’m afraid to fire them, but they still count, dammit).

So, what part of Canada are we invading first? I say Montreal.

You rednecks in those non-blue states don’t like French speakers, right? 🙂

16. Michael - August 28, 2007

or is this a home invasion thing by middle and lower class American’s trying to get some affordable healthcare???

It’s actually just a grudge match — meaning, I’m still pissed about the War of 1812.

I’ve been thinking about my battle plan some more. It seems to me that we should motivate the U.S. combatants by authorizing them to confiscate and bring back across the border all the Canadian beer that they can fit in their SUV.

17. wheresroxy - August 28, 2007

Errrmm…. and this is a bad thing?
Oh… sorry… yes it is… we need to increase that number dammit!
So, my question is – with so many guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, what exactly is the point of “stricter” gun control? As if criminals (aka “outlaws”) really obey the law to begin with, hence the term “outlaw”.
We’ll not discuss how many of those I and my coworkers are responsible for. And hey! I happen to be a slightly to the left of center chick out on the west coast! We’re not all granola here.

18. Michael - August 28, 2007

So, what part of Canada are we invading first? I say Montreal.

Great idea! That’s where we lost the War of 1812.

Also, Chez Paree in Montreal is by far the best strip club I’ve ever seen.

19. geoff - August 28, 2007

If we don’t strip Canada, only Canada will have strippers.

20. Babs - August 28, 2007

Now that there was some funny! I don’t happen to own a gun so I guess I’ll help fix lunch…

21. Retired Geezer - August 28, 2007

I don’t happen to own a gun so I guess I’ll help fix lunch…

You’re in luck, you fix lunch and someone will Give you a gun.

22. cranky - August 28, 2007

We’re Number One with a Bullet!

Two handguns, two rifles, one 12 gauge pump.

23. Michael - August 28, 2007

Two deer rifles with scopes.

Well, I’ve got my Mom’s single-shot .22 plinking rifle, but I’m not going to attack Canada with that.

24. Russ from Winterset - August 28, 2007

multiple handguns, multiple rifles, multiple shotguns, and one of those big “wrist rocket” type slingshots that I use to launch tennis balls for Bandit to fetch. Now all I need to do is finish building that trebuchet in the back yard.

25. kevlarchick - August 28, 2007

I shoot other people’s guns.

26. TexasAC - August 28, 2007

With my seven pistolas, ‘druther attack Mehico…Canucks is too fur.

27. daveintexas - August 28, 2007

I think I got enough to sponsor a Lend Lease program

28. steveegg - August 28, 2007

The only problem with a takeover of Canada would be that I’d have to supply my SS# to fish.

OTOH, I would be able to get Kokanee and Labatt Maximum Ice.

I’ll take Northwest Ontario.

29. No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Let’s make it 100 for 100 - August 28, 2007

[…] Michael at Innocent Bystanders picks up on a Reuters report that America has 90 guns per 100 citizens and suggests we all charge north. While I like the idea of no longer having to import my Kokanee and Labatt Maximum Ice, or pay non-citizen rates for a fishing license, I don’t like the prospect of having to supply my SocSecurity number to get that license. […]

30. mesablue - August 28, 2007
31. The Diplomad - August 28, 2007

We at The Diplomad have commented on this report as well. We hadn’t thought of the Canada angle . . . .

32. Michael - August 28, 2007

We hadn’t thought of the Canada angle . . . .

Eh — rookie mistake. You guys at the Department of State are still getting accustomed to the intertubes, so you can be forgiven for missing the obvious implications of a news story that are immediately apparent to us veteran commenters.

33. Wickedpinto - August 28, 2007

I’m trying to remember some of the cold war, I’m a younglin.

But didn’t russia engage in missions over canadian space, with impunity, and the US sat there circling the US territory, waiting for the canadians to either act, or authorize US use of airspace, and it never happened?

Canada sucks.

34. Michael - August 28, 2007

Mrs. Michael just told me that a big model of Mr. Lamm’s Heavy Metal Genuine San Antonio Texas Barbecue™ was featured on The Food Network. The owner was from Kansas City. I still may be the only person in Ohio who owns one of these hand-crafted masterpieces.

35. Russ' neighbors - August 28, 2007

Now all I need to do is finish building that trebuchet in the back yard.

Take your time.

36. Wickedpinto - August 28, 2007

If we were an evil nation focused on imperial land grabs, we could conquer the entire world without an army. Our Civvie’s out shoot, and are less tolerant than other nations when it comes to crime.

Too bad we have accepted the lie (it’s unconstitutional for the congress to interfere in the military, the whole seperation of powers thing) that the “people” actually polls of a moment, can control the military.

Our military is brilliantly trained, but they aren’t allowed to do their job, even by our pussy commander’s in chief.

Our civilians could do a better job, not cuz they are better, but because they wouldn’t hold back.

Our civilians, were this ACTUALLY an impreialist nation, could conquer all of the western hemisphere within a few weeks.

The big difference between the US and other military forces. . . we tend to hit our targets.

37. Retired Geezer - August 29, 2007

The Mayor of Mitchieville has a companion piece.

This is why I have trouble voting for someone like Rudy.

38. bueller - August 29, 2007

who the hell wants to take over canada, they are a worthless frozen wasteland. lets take over someplace cool like amsterdam.

http://www.drunkenpanda.com

39. chessnoid - August 29, 2007

The US having so many guns is not a good thing. I saw a movie by Michael Moore called Bowling for Columbine, and that shows how easy it is for basically anyone to buy a gun. 😦

40. Mark - August 29, 2007

chessnoid,

It is truly sad that you would spend your precious time listening to anything Moore has to say. Your assumptions that “so many guns is not a good thing” tells me that Moore has succeeded indoctrinating you. You don’t even question why anyone would want to own a gun.

Moore has nothing but contempt for the truth and for honest debate. He is an uneducated narcissisist who preaches on topics he know nothing about. Anyone who watches his “documentaries” has been very much misinformed.

41. BrewFan - August 29, 2007

Moore has nothing but contempt for the truth and for honest debate. He is an uneducated narcissisist who preaches on topics he know nothing about.

He’s also a big fat poopy head.

42. Mrs. Peel - August 29, 2007

chessnoid, I am 5’1″ and might weigh 100 pounds soaking wet. How do you suggest I defend myself?

Also, it’s just plain fun to go to the range.

43. cranky - August 29, 2007

^ Mrs. Peel becomes more and more attractive all the time.

44. Retired Geezer - August 29, 2007

and might weigh 100 pounds soaking wet.

Mrs. Peel, come to the IB Gathering at Michael’s. I’m sure he will have a wet t-shirt contest and we can verify those numbers.

45. compos mentis - August 29, 2007

#15 – You’re right. I shouldn’t generalize. There are many fellow countrymen/women on the coasts who are smart enough to understand the necessity of an armed citizenry.

He’s also a big fat poopy head.

I used to loathe the man. I’ve found ignoring him works much better regarding my blood pressure and overall mental well-being. It doesn’t keep me from wanting to slap the shit out of anyone who takes him seriously.

46. BrewFan - August 29, 2007

I’ve found ignoring him works much better regarding my blood pressure and overall mental well-being

This is my new strategy for coping with the Milwaukee Brewers 😦

47. jrantonini - August 29, 2007

Mention guns, and the commenting games begin posthaste … no pun intended.

Let’s do plan on some Canadian beer with that lunch, ay.

48. jeremy - August 29, 2007

If we can’t beat other countries in intelligence, I guess we’ll have to beat them with our gun collections. ‘Cause we can’t figure out how to shoot them! oooooo snap.

49. wheresroxy - August 29, 2007

For those Michael Moore fans out there – even Moore admits that piece was more drama than documentary… The gun issue is one that will forever cause heated debate, and those with extremist views on either side of the fence are not likely to change their opinions.
As for me, thanks but my entire career hinges on firearms of all types, and the ability of the people to buy them, keep them and shoot them.
Mrs. Peel – don’t you know, you are not supposed to defend yourself? That’s what the police are for, right? (note sarcasm dripping from every syllable there…)
Truly, how else is a person (be they male or female) supposed to defend home, heart and hearth?
Warning – anyone coming unwelcome into my home is likely to meet with a very unpleasant “welcome” party… and that’s the way we like it.

50. compos mentis - August 29, 2007

#48 – Despite the juvenile discourse that permeates this site, it’s still a place for grownups. So you just run along now.

51. Michael - August 29, 2007

Truly, how else is a person (be they male or female) supposed to defend home, heart and hearth?

Wheresroxy, to make our homes safe, first we need to understand the root causes of crime. You know, like poverty and racism and stuff. Then we need to have programs to fix those problems.

Sheesh, don’t you know anything?

52. Mrs. Michael - August 29, 2007

Do you think that the root cause of crime can be fought through Adult Literacy Programs?

I’m just askin…

53. geoff - August 29, 2007

Then we need to have programs to fix aggravate those problems.

Fixed it for ya.

54. Sobek - August 29, 2007

“Do you think that the root cause of crime can be fought through Adult Literacy Programs?”

No. Federal funding of PBS, on the other hand…

55. Mrs. Michael - August 29, 2007

I’m sure that GLOBAL WARMING is at the center of the crime problem, though…

56. steveegg - August 29, 2007

BrewFan – August 29, 2007

This is my new strategy for coping with the Milwaukee Brewers

I find a couple hours at McMiller’s does wonders for that.

57. maxgarth - August 29, 2007

Fact is in the USA those municipalities which have the most restrictive firearm laws have the highest firearm death rates.
Those municipalities with liberal firearm laws have the lowest firearm death rates. Like Washington DC last heard 77.7/100,000 people.
Boise Indianana 1.7/100,000 people, Kennisaw (a suburb of Atlanta)0/100,000 people.
Washington DC 77.7 Arlington Virginia, just across the river is 7.7/100,000.
Basic fact, firearms do not kill people, they are inert brainless objects, people kill people with firearms.
Off hand I would reckon that the first prize for armed citizens should go to any of Iraq,Afganistan, Georgia, Lebanon, the West Bank or a few African countries.
Cheers there is hope yet, MaxG.

58. Michael - August 29, 2007

Good point about PBS, Sobek. We also can fight crime with more public art. You know, stuff that really ennobles the human spirit, like those rusty slabs of steel in St. Louis that give the winos something to pee on.

59. wheresroxy - August 29, 2007

Hmm… sorry, I forgot the answer to all our problems is more government intervention… whoops.

60. Retired Geezer - August 29, 2007

Boise Indianana 1.7/100,000 people,

That’s a coinkidink, Boise, Idaho has the same population!

😉

61. Retired Geezer - August 29, 2007

If we get a homicide, it’s front page above-the-fold news.

62. Mr. Matamoros - August 29, 2007

Sounds like I need to get more guns…can anyone recommend a good shotgun for home defense?

63. Don Carne - August 29, 2007

Canadian invasion? I’m up for that!

64. Russ from Winterset - August 29, 2007

The Mossberg 500 is a good pump gun. The Remington 870 is a good one too, but it’s a little more spendy. I wouldn’t get one of those exposed hammer double barrels for self defense, and off-brand pumps would probably be OK, but I’d rather risk my bacon on a proven product.

The Mossberg 500 is a good gun, and you can change barrels quickly from the 28″ field barrel to a 20″ barrel with an IC choke & a bead sight. Heck, you can even get rifled/non-rifled deer slug barrels with rifle sights if you’re in a state where hunters are limited to slugs. I haven’t priced one lately, but I think they’re about $100 less than the Remington.

The Remington 870 is a silky smooth gun. My wife bought me one for Christmas/birthday/Groundhog Day a few years ago, and it’s pure poison on critters. You can get slug & short barrels for this gun too, but they’re more expensive than the ones you can get for the Mossberg.

If you’re gonna use the gun for self defense only, I’d try to find a good used Mossberg 500 at a pawn shop or gun store. If you want to have a hunting gun that can serve as a home defense gun as well, spend a little extra & get the Remington 870. The “Express” model 870 with a dull phosphate finish is comparable in price to the Mossberg, and it holds up well under adverse conditions. If you want to have a high capacity shotgun, get the Mossberg 590 (8 round magazine, and it’s the US military issue shotgun).

Before you get the gun, check with your local gun store or sheriff’s department to see if they can direct you to an organization that offers instruction in using shotguns for self defense. Even if it’s a “non-shooting” course where they discuss the legalities of shooting & the importance of knowing what’s in your field of fire, it’ll be worth your while to do this in addition to buying the right gun.

65. Retired Geezer - August 29, 2007

Russ beat me to it, get the Mossberg 500. I think you can get it with a pistol grip, if you’re so inclined. Be sure you get the one with 2 separate barrels.

Or the Remington 870.

Nothing says “Get the fu@k out of this house”, to a perp, like the sound of a 12 ga being racked.

66. Mr. Matamoros - August 29, 2007

Coolness. Thanks for the help/advice. I think I’ll look at the pistol grip configuration…and yup, you certainly can capture the attention of an invading sleazeball when you rack it up.

67. Russ from Winterset - August 29, 2007

The pistol grip gun is fine if you’re carrying it under an overcoat, or if you’re carrying it in another place where you’ve got limited room.

The main problem with the pistol grip is that it makes your shots less accurate. Yeah, I know, missing with a SHOTGUN takes a special kind of dumbass skill, but misses DO happen. Get the gun with a full buttstock & you’ll thank me.

Plus shooting a pistol grip shotgun righthanded is harder on your right wrist than shooting a full-stock shotgun is on your shoulder.

Now if you’re talking about one of those aftermarket stocks that have a pistol grip AND a full buttstock, then go for it. I think there’s a Speedfeed stock that holds an extra 4 rounds in two compartments in the stock. That would be a good addition to a stock 500.

68. Russ from Winterset - August 29, 2007

Oh yeah, and just a tip for setting up your self-defense loads:

Buy a box of rubber buckshot (Sellier & Bellot makes it, among others) & set up the gun so that your first round out of the magazine & into the chamber is a rubber buckshot shell.

That way, if you’re involved in a shooting, you’re giving the crapweasel you’re shooting at the option of shitting his pants & running instead of dying where he stands. A pump gun reloads very quickly, so you’ll have a buckshot round in the chamber within a couple of seconds if he doesn’t “take the hint”. This sort of humanitarian thinking on your part will make a prosecutor or jury lean your way IF the shooting is questionable in any way.

Not that a rubber buckshot is a purely non-lethal round: They’re deadly if you hit someone in the right spot at close range, but using them at least indicates that you’re willing to consider NOT killing an intruder in your house unless you absolutely have to.

69. Mrs. Michael - August 29, 2007

And maybe the noise from the shotgun’s pumping action will motivate them to turn and run long before they get hit with rubber buckshot.

70. ariadisfida - August 30, 2007

The US having so many guns is not a good thing. I saw a movie by Michael Moore called Bowling for Columbine, and that shows how easy it is for basically anyone to buy a gun.:(
that’s some good funny right there. somehow the sad face makes it even funnier.

71. Hope For The New Year — Oil, Gas and Coal « Innocent Bystanders - December 29, 2011

[…] I have been advocating for a long time, the U.S. should conquer Canada,  which is overdue for some whupass anyway.  I believe I have now been vindicated.  Those oil […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: