link GENEVA — There are nine guns for every 10 people in the United States, with about 270 million firearms in circulation, according to a report released today. Worldwide, civilians now have access to 650 million small arms — from handguns to semiautomatic rifles — an arsenal that far outstrips what is held by police and militaries, according to the annual Small Arms Survey. It estimates that civilians account for about three-fourths of the 875 million such weapons in circulation. "Civilian holdings of weapons worldwide are much larger than we previously believed," the director of the Geneva-based group, Keith Krause, told reporters. But it is the United States that has the heaviest concentration of firearms. Of the 8 million new firearms manufactured annually around the world, roughly 4.5 million are bought in the United States. Other countries with high per capita ownership include Yemen, with 61 small arms per 100 people; Finland with 56; Switzerland with 46 and Iraq with 39. Much lower on the scale are Brazil, with nine guns per 100 people, England and Wales with six, India with four, China with three and Nigeria with one. The report notes that only about 12 percent of all weapons worldwide are registered with authorities, making it difficult to collect exact data on gun possession. Five years ago the group estimated a total of 640 million small arms worldwide. "There's a large number of states in the middle, mostly northern industrial states in Western Europe and North America," said Krause, citing France, with 32 per 100 people; Canada and Sweden, with 31 each and Germany, with 30. The figures dispel the idea that gun ownership and high levels of violence necessarily go hand in hand, he said. "There's no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence," Krause said, pointing to low ownership and high crime rates in Latin America. He said studies had shown that gun violence often occurred in places undergoing rapid urban growth, and when lawless areas are created by extreme poverty and the absence of effective policing. The problem is worsened when members of government or police forces sell ammunition on the black market, Krause said. In Rio de Janeiro, "a combination of factors suggest that state security forces — most notably the police — are the source of much of the assault rifle ammunition in the hands of criminal gangs," the report said. Thousands of arms supplied to Iraq by the United States are believed to have been acquired by insurgents through rogue elements in the Iraqi security forces. Sudan, meanwhile, has purchased more than 25 million firearms in recent years — mostly from China and Iran — despite well-documented human rights violations committed by government-backed militias. Krause said wealthy countries with lower crime rates, such as those in the 27-nation European Union, are dealing with an increased flow of small arms across borders where controls have been loosened. Recent shootings in Britain — where ownership is severely restricted and the gun crime rate is low — highlight the need for greater police cooperation in Europe, he said.
Yeah with a large portion of gun owners also being collectors its not surprising at all. In fact even a hunter who hunts for instance duck, deer, quail and shoots skeet to keep in practice off season will probably have 4-6 guns even if he views them as tools with no intrinsic or sentimental value whatsoever. This is quite unlikely though, because even if not a collector, most hunters like to recall which gun bagged which trophy.
I don't even hunt that often, but I have a shotgun for birds, a rifle for deer, an old .32 revolver my Dad had, and a .22 Marlin for plinking. Every male member of my wife's extended family is a hunter/fisherman, and had the gun collection to back it up. My Grandfather had about 10 rifles of various age and make, and my sister-in law's boyfriend is a collector with an assortment of old WW1 and WW2 rifles. I can see how this stat can get high, because the folks that do own guns usually have more than one, and often a collection, especially if they hunt different game.
i was going to say i'm the 10th guy since i dont have one. apparently YOU have mine and someone else's
I was given several guns by my grandfather years ago. My collection stands at 17 right now. 6 Pistols: 2-45's, 40, 22, 357, 25 cal. 1 Assault Rifle: AR-15, 223 5 Shotguns 12's and 20's, and a little 410 3 Deer Rifles: .280, M1Garrand 30-06, 7 mm 2 Air Rifle and a .22 I love every single one, and have plans to get a few more. Most of the above mentioned are classics from the 30's and 40's, so I never shoot them. I really only use 2-3 for hunting every year, the rest sit in my gun safe to collect dust and value.
i am not agreeing with what michael vick did at all. i am just curious as to see why is it is okay for people to kill other animals and not dogs? just because dogs have come to have the impression of being a pet? if dogs tasted good then would it have been okay to kill them too? i am not trying to offend anyone i just want to know what other people think so please give me some feedback. thanks. (i realize maybe this should be in the vick thread)
I don't have any guns. When I go hunting, I bring a noose to choke deer to death. I also have put together a big battery backpack with a couple of leads so I can sneak up on them and electrocute them to death. Sometimes, I like to go the low-tech way and slam those deer on the ground until they're dead. Then I have the butcher make some venison sausage; it's so good. The taxidermist complains it's hard to mount the head when I've mangled it so badly, so he charges me a bit more; but he does good work.
I think the argument there is twofold: 1) Vick didn't just kill dogs. He bred large quantity of dogs for the sole purpose of violent combat against other dogs. Hunters don't do that to deer. 2) Dogs are domesticated animals and I think that, generally, people think of domesticated animals as needing to be killed in a more humane way. Even the cattle that are killed for the beef in our grocery store must be killed in a certain way as to not be overly cruel to the animal. Non-domesticated animals don't seem to get the same treatment, though. Farmers have killed animals in crazy ways for a long time. Ever heard the term "who let the cat out of the bag?". Farmers used to take kittens, put 'em all in a bag, then take them to the nearby lake or river and drown 'em. Honestly, the killing of animals doesn't bother me a whole lot. I'm happily carnivorous and that means that for me to eat meat, animals must die. I've accepted that fact and possibly even embraced it. That said, I object to those who take enjoyment out of an animal's pain. I also feel that training animals to fight each other is wrong.
i agree w/ the substance of your post, but i believe that electrocution is the most common method of killing cows, which was one of mike vicks methods as well. watch the movie 'fast food nation'. the ending is a real eye opener. one of the most brutal scenes ive ever seen. as for hunting, i guess the difference is that most hunters do it for the meat. there is a purpose to the hunt (besides gambling $$$). there is a long tradition for hunting which i think is a pretty important part of american culture. i suppose an argument could be made against people who just hunt purely for the sport, but even in that case it just doesnt seem as cruel to shoot an animal as opposed to drowning one. it says more about the psyche of the person who can do stuff like that.
Completely agree, but I wonder about states such as Tennessee which basically says you can kill all the feral hogs you can harvest...I think there should be a provision which makes it easy, safe and a requirement to donate the meat to the needy unless you eat it yourself...
