Small Arms Survey Shows U.S. with 40% of Firearms

Gun Watch ^ | 24 June, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

[LumberJack53213]

I really need to buy two more ARs before the prices jump again

[Big Red Badger]

I Like Money.

[ScottinVA]

40% — a good start.

[Blueflag]

It’s all good as along as we have 60% of the ammunition and spare parts ...

[Blueflag]

The military members are also ‘civilians’ to an extent.

Some of the Agency types, maybe not so much.

There are asymmetrical methods to defeat sophisticated hardware and technologies.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[TADSLOS]

Heartwarming.

[marktwain]

Are we confused, yet? ;-)

---

I am not. 40% of all small arms in the world.

46% of all privately owned firearms in the world.

There is a difference.

[G Larry]

I figure about 1500 rds/year.

If I take special training, add another 700 rds.

[upchuck]

The United States accounted for 60 percent of the total global increase.

And that is why the 2A is so important.

Thanks for the ping Procon.

[mylife]

“Very few guns are worn out from firing them” I have a Russian Rifle made in 1897, That means it was produced during the reign of Czar Nicholas, before communism.

It went through the revolution, the 1st world war, the winter war, the 2nd world war... God only knows how many wars.

I found it in Tx for $100

Its rifling is still strong but frosted due to the corrosive ammo

I have a Rockola M1 carbine that needs a new barrel, I found it in Tx for $300

[mylife]

Tell her its for her its for her gold and jewelry...

[dangerdoc]

I could use freeper advice, I’ve never personally owned an AR for various reasons. I’m wanting a plinking rifle, was originally going to buy a 10mm carbine as I could supply ammo for years out of my stash of components. I’ll probably never reload rifle ammo but I could easily aquire a few thousand .223 rounds to squirrel away.

An AR looks like it might be fun but Ruger is supposed to be releasing camp carbine in 10mm that will take my Glock magazines. Decisions, decisions. But I’m willing to do my part to get to 50 percent.

[mylife]

By my estimates even 25% of rabid left wingers are armed.

They maybe nutzo left wingers but they are armed.

[Deplorable American1776]

David AttentionHogg is very upset, me I’d love it at 75% all Deplorables with guns...

[Deplorable American1776]

Love it...I see most of the trademarks of the guns, but the i I don't know.

Anyone want a bumper sticker? Liberals will be mad...Good...

[Deplorable American1776]

Connecticut might surprise in November...I think they are going to #MCGA...

[familyop]

Thanks!

[schurmann]

” “A rifle behind every blade of grass” ‘ [circlecity, post 4]

“Considering the majority of civilian owned guns, which are obviously of less than comparable sophistication vs those weapons the military has, that “estimation” significance is grossly overstated.” [DaveA37, post 8]

“Ok, but I fail to see your point. Can you elaborate?” [central_va, post 11]

Posts by circlecity and central_va allude to the belief - widely held by American gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment supporters - that the high rate of gun ownership among US citizens will prevent takeover of the country by any military force, foreign or domestic.

DaveA37’s post questions this, arguing that the nature and capabilities of modern military armaments degrade any effectiveness to be found in large masses of civilians bearing very light firearms.

The belief’s more of a conceit. It’s not supported by any historical case. The most succinct summary of available evidence can be found in _Winston’s War: Churchill, 1940-1945_ by Max Hastings (Vintage: 2011; ISBN-10: 0307388719; ISBN-13: 978-0307388711). After examining the various resistance movements in the nations occupied by Nazi Germany during World War Two, author Hastings concluded that they accomplished very little against German units - no matter how important they were in keeping up morale among occupied populations, or reviving national self-respect after the German surrender.

Many Americans attribute success in the American War of Independence to the existence of an armed populace; national defense was based on this “militia are better” notion for many years after 1783. But the concept was invalidated soon after: the War of 1812 came as a rude shock. Something more substantive was needed, beyond townspeople and farmers toting muskets in the ranks of hurriedly-raised militia. Professionalization and better armaments were indispensable. John R Elting’s _Amateurs, To Arms!: A Military History Of The War Of 1812_ (Da Capo, 1995; ISBN-10: 0306806533; ISBN-13: 978-0306806537).

It’s not merely weaponry. A regular military unit will be organized, trained, supplied, cohesive, and motivated. These attributes can improve its changes against a unit - even a larger one - not up to snuff in said areas. Average citizens rarely have the time, resources, or knowledge to reach such a level.

[mad_as_he$$]

It took 130,000 US troops to suppress about 10,000 insurgents in Iraq. A country about the size of Kalifornia.

Also, there is a large contingent of former military in the civilian population many with years of combat experience. IMHO the German/Europe comparison in WW2 does not hold up.