Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is research from 2007 about ownership of guns per 100 houses, and my country is listed as second:



This is so unrealistic, first because to have a legal gun in your house you must:

-wait for 3 months for police to file all the papers
-pay 150 Euros per year as tax ( and that's for 9mm pistol, anything bigger means more cash. And average salary here is 300 Euros )
-always keep him disassembled and locked in a box ( if they catch you with assembled gun in your house they remove the gun from your possession and bill you hard )

You can only imagined how expensive it must be to have permission to carry him around.

But the funniest thing here is that according to our laws ( which are from 1974 by the way ) we cannot use it ever, even if it's in self defence.

Examples ( scenario is that somebody just broke into my house and I am using my gun to defend myself ):

-Defense must be same strength as attack ( so if someone attacks me with a knife I cannot gun him down because my weapon is superior I must take knife too and strike him back ).
-Attacker always strike first ( which means that even if me and attacker have guns he must fire first because if I fire first I will be regarded as attacker on our courts, no matter if he broke into my house to rob me. So I must wait for him to shoot me before I can shoot him first ).
-Defense last the same amount of time as the attack ( which means if he shoot me in the leg and turns his back toward me I cannot shoot him back because the attack has ended, even if I shoot him it will be regarded that I attacked him first and it is me who is going to be prosecuted )

After reading this laws you think that only crazy people will keep private firearms in their houses, and we are the second nation in the world on the list of firearms per 100 houses

Uh source? To me its just a random graph...

Japan is listed as last on the list, despite it having stricter gun laws than many other countries (including the UK). Israel's not high on the list despite it being a requirement for the militia to have an assault rifle and a pistol in their possession... And so on. =P

Source

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
Examples ( scenario is that somebody just broke into my house and I am using my gun to defend myself ):

-Defense must be same strength as attack ( so if someone attacks me with a knife I cannot gun him down because my weapon is superior I must take knife too and strike him back ).
-Attacker always strike first ( which means that even if me and attacker have guns he must fire first because if I fire first I will be regarded as attacker on our courts, no matter if he broke into my house to rob me. So I must wait for him to shoot me before I can shoot him first ).
-Defense last the same amount of time as the attack ( which means if he shoot me in the leg and turns his back toward me I cannot shoot him back because the attack has ended, even if I shoot him it will be regarded that I attacked him first and it is me who is going to be prosecuted

In the US, we have a saying that would apply to this:

"Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6".

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Israel's not high on the list despite it being a requirement for the militia to have an assault rifle and a pistol in their possession...

That's because those arms belongs to the state of Israel, this is graph for personal weapons. The ones who are in possession of it's owners and not state itself.

Yea I wouldnt believe that at all. According to that graph, 80% of house hold have fire arms? Thats a bit high, even for Murica.

 KingCracker wrote:
Yea I wouldnt believe that at all. According to that graph, 80% of house hold have fire arms? Thats a bit high, even for Murica.

I think the actual number is between 42 and 50 percent.

That being said, 42% of all the world's firearms belong to our population, despite us only being 5% of the world population. That is very 'Murica.

 KingCracker wrote:
Yea I wouldnt believe that at all. According to that graph, 80% of house hold have fire arms? Thats a bit high, even for Murica.

i suppose if you look at in pure numbers..yes, the number of households may be lower, but when you look at the number of households with multiple firearms.. things can change fairly quickly.

 KingCracker wrote:
Yea I wouldnt believe that at all. According to that graph, 80% of house hold have fire arms? Thats a bit high, even for Murica.

Yeah but if you factor in people who collect firearms, or hunters who may have a rifle, shotgun and hand gun etc. (i.e. one person owning multiple weapons) then the data becomes more realistic.

The last few years has surely seen that chart become useless. Supposedly there has been 70,000,000 new firearm background checks since Obama took office. So there is probably a gun per person privately (and legally) owned in the US now. Granted, people will have multiples, I have 5 myself, so it's not really 1 per household.

Yeah graph makes a lot more sense when you think about multiple guns per person. Heck, my dad hasn't gone shooting in years, yet he owns at least 6 guns himself.

On the Serbia bit, no idea. Could it be counting some guy who has thousands of guns in a warehouse somewhere?

Also, if you're supposed to keep it to keep it disassembled at all times, what can you use it for? Is it purely hunting and target practice then?

 djones520 wrote:
The last few years has surely seen that chart become useless. Supposedly there has been 70,000,000 new firearm background checks since Obama took office. So there is probably a gun per person privately (and legally) owned in the US now. Granted, people will have multiples, I have 5 myself, so it's not really 1 per household.

I think he's done more for the profits of firearm companies than the NRA I live in a small Mid-West town and since the talk of new firearm laws started the common calibers of bullet have flown off the shelf and the stores can't keep up with demand.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The last few years has surely seen that chart become useless. Supposedly there has been 70,000,000 new firearm background checks since Obama took office. So there is probably a gun per person privately (and legally) owned in the US now. Granted, people will have multiples, I have 5 myself, so it's not really 1 per household.

I think he's done more for the profits of firearm companies than the NRA I live in a small Mid-West town and since the talk of new firearm laws started the common calibers of bullet have flown off the shelf and the stores can't keep up with demand.

It's like that nationwide. I stopped in stores in Illinois and Michigan in the last couple of weeks, and all of them were wiped clean.

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:
This is research from 2007 about ownership of guns per 100 houses, and my country is listed as second:

Better start buying more guns then, you're never going to catch up and get first place if you don't start trying a little harder.

-Defense must be same strength as attack ( so if someone attacks me with a knife I cannot gun him down because my weapon is superior I must take knife too and strike him back ).
-Attacker always strike first ( which means that even if me and attacker have guns he must fire first because if I fire first I will be regarded as attacker on our courts, no matter if he broke into my house to rob me. So I must wait for him to shoot me before I can shoot him first ).
-Defense last the same amount of time as the attack ( which means if he shoot me in the leg and turns his back toward me I cannot shoot him back because the attack has ended, even if I shoot him it will be regarded that I attacked him first and it is me who is going to be prosecuted )

Thank you for reminding me how lucky I am to live in a country that doesn't have absolutely insane laws on self defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I think he's done more for the profits of firearm companies than the NRA I live in a small Mid-West town and since the talk of new firearm laws started the common calibers of bullet have flown off the shelf and the stores can't keep up with demand.

Clearly Obama is taking bribes from the gun industry, he proposes new gun laws that have no chance of passing and sales go up. It's win/win for everyone!

/tinfoil hat

Switzerland is not even on the graph, thus I belive it is largly (if not entirely) made up.

Perhaps try to find some data that isn't 6 years old? Probably has changed around since then.

 Peregrine wrote:
Clearly Obama is taking bribes from the gun industry, he proposes new gun laws that have no chance of passing and sales go up. It's win/win for everyone!

/tinfoil hat

Yes, because that's clearly what was meant when I posted that, complete with laughing Ork face so people with basic reading comprehension could see that it was in jest and nothing else

In short;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
In short;

In short, learn to recognize a joke before posting giant "YOU ARE WRONG" pictures?

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Switzerland is not even on the graph, thus I belive it is largly (if not entirely) made up.

Most Swiss guns - the assault rifle in the home - are government-issued, right?

 Seaward wrote:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Switzerland is not even on the graph, thus I belive it is largly (if not entirely) made up.

Most Swiss guns - the assault rifle in the home - are government-issued, right?

Yes, but I belive they are allowed to keep it after they leave the service,

 Peregrine wrote:
In short, learn to recognize a joke before posting giant "YOU ARE WRONG" pictures?

Because every joke ends with claims of a conspiracy theory for the punchline, and nothing to indicate sarcasm, much less humour, right?

 Peregrine wrote:
/tinfoil hat

Maybe you need to learn how to write a joke?

Ahem...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephengutowski/infographic-gun-facts-you-need-to-know-5k8e

 whembly wrote:
Ahem...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephengutowski/infographic-gun-facts-you-need-to-know-5k8e

Pretty interesting, thank you

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

On the Serbia bit, no idea. Could it be counting some guy who has thousands of guns in a warehouse somewhere?

Note that this graph is mostly for villages then cities. Because in villages almost every house have some kind of firearms, illegal of course...

I will just give you one example: few years ago one old grampa was celebrating because his son got a child at last. To celebrate that he went into a barn and from it he took 150mm heavy artillery left from WW1 and fire it on the nearby vilalge, killing one cow. Most of his friends and family has gone deaf as a result of that.
Now that is one incident, imagine what other have then left from Balkan Wars, WW1, WW2 and Civil War from the 90's...

Also, if you're supposed to keep it to keep it disassembled at all times, what can you use it for? Is it purely hunting and target practice then?

Quite true, most guns in the house are for hunting and shooting range. Our laws forbids us to use it in self defense - even the police and military are forbidden to use them outside wartimes.

 Peregrine wrote:

Thank you for reminding me how lucky I am to live in a country that doesn't have absolutely insane laws on self defense.

You have no idea brother...

The graph is not based on the tabulated figures.

One or other is false.

Tabulated figures were done first, the graph was made later after tabulated figures were updated.

The tabulated figures are not correctly represented in the chart.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Uh source? To me its just a random graph...

Japan is listed as last on the list, despite it having stricter gun laws than many other countries (including the UK). Israel's not high on the list despite it being a requirement for the militia to have an assault rifle and a pistol in their possession... And so on. =P

I agree with Wyrmalla here especially on the Japan front. I may be wrong/stupid on this but I thought the law was that civilians in Japan are not allowed to own/carry guns? That even touching a gun without licenses etc can result in jail time or huge fines?

I always thought it was only the Police are allowed to carry guns and the only other guns that may be owned/used by people, are by sportsmen for hunting/skeet/trap shooting and through which they have to go through a ridiculously strict application process with several high maintenance control measures afterwards? (seperate lockers for weapons and ammo, maps/information on lockers/ammo/guns to police, all uses etc accounted for.)

I'd think after all that they wouldn't even be on this chart. Although I'm probably wrong here, my gun knowledge in other countries is lacking

*Edited for Spelling*

KingCracker wrote:Yea I wouldnt believe that at all. According to that graph, 80% of house hold have fire arms? Thats a bit high, even for Murica.

The graph is labelled as household with guns, but the axis is actually measuring the rate of ownership per 100 people; households have nothing to do with it.

I believe the actual number is 89 guns per 100 people in the US.

And if this graph is based solely on private ownership, then that would explain why Israel is so low, and why Switzerland is likely non-existent (due to state-issued firearms)

@Whembly: I take some issue with the disingenuous numbers in that link. The "US doesn't even crack the top 25" bit evidently considers Puerto Rico to not be entirely separate from the US, which is a grey area at best. Even beyond that, attempting to claim that you don't have a problem because there are 25 third-world countries with little to no government infrastructure that are worse is a farce.

 azazel the cat wrote:

@Whembly: I take some issue with the disingenuous numbers in that link. The "US doesn't even crack the top 25" bit evidently considers Puerto Rico to not be entirely separate from the US, which is a grey area at best. Even beyond that, attempting to claim that you don't have a problem because there are 25 third-world countries with little to no government infrastructure that are worse is a farce.

Erm... okay.

We need to be number one?