120.5 Guns per 100 Citizens


“Total “civilian held and illicit firearms” in America were estimated at 339,300,000, amounting to 120.5 guns for every 100 residents. In other words, in this country, there are more guns than people.”

This is actually deceiving, 120.5/100 looks like a lot but if you think of a Hand gun for self defense, Shotgun for hunting fowl, Rifle for small game, Rifle for big game, it’s easy to get to 4-5 guns per household.
I grow a bit tired of all of this sensationalism.


I like the last sentence. :+1:

Based on recent battles over gun laws in the U.S, the ability to obtain guns is not likely to be curtailed. That means the U.S. will likely remain the country where people own the most guns for decades or longer.


120.5 per 100… Some of you people are slacking! :grinning:


I’m not sure how to count “illicit” items. Seems like a good way to create the results the survey wanted to find. Just because the survey comes from a ‘respected’ country doesn’t mean it wasn’t backed by anti-gun fanatics.


I believe LGB changed all that with his donation of $80+ billion arms to the Afghanis. Oh, wait, most of those arms were not firearms. Hey, LGB, when do I get my free tank?


For an urban dweller, and thats who this MSN article targets, it is hard to see why a rural resident needs both a shotgun and a rifle. The food comes from a supermarket, doesnt it.
In Switzerland and Israel, lots of full auto military rifles are present in private homes, but they are government-owned, so the stats discounted them completely. Third point, I’d like to see stats on murder and assault with firearms, per gun owned.
As rightly noted, MSN puts out cheap sensationalism, not substance.


Cherry picked and misleadingly presented statistics, or information in general for that matter, is epidemic. Often, even if the information is true, it’s importance or significance is misrepresented. It is to the point now that even the “fact checkers” have emerged as some of the most affective front line soldiers carrying out the assault of disinformation.

Don’t forget that we now live in a world where people argue seriously over weather 2+2 should be viewed as having only one legitimate answer. It speaks very loudly as to how corrupted the representation of even the most basic of information has become.

Then there are the ever-shifted meanings of the very words we use, or, the use of a word that implies much, but says nothing in particular, like “illicit”. It’s clearly used here to " illicit " the idea in the mind of the reader, that these are nefarious items, but one does not actually KNOW what the word is referring too.

One might want to go so far as to ask if the total number of " guns " sited in the article might possibly include BB guns, rubber band guns, or some other irrelevant category of “gun”. The epidemic of lying has gotten that bad.

Regardless, to Highlight how many guns may be in America, is to highlight an aspect of the subject that is not nearly as relevant, or important, as other aspects. It’s like highlighting the number of cars in America, when the vastly more important and impactful issues are things like texting while driving,

The key to success is correctly identifying what’s true and relevant, while a key to deception is to draw the eye away from the true and relevant, and get it drawn to some other “shiny object” that distracts the attention away from what really matters.

To me, the number of guns per capita in America is one such “shiny object” that draws the attention away to something that feels sensational and shocking, but that is easily manipulated to misrepresent the subject and is, in fact, not at the heart of the issues that are most relevant, or important.

Of uppermost importance to the issue of gun ownership in America, for example, is WHY we have the right to bear arms in the first place, and, the true affects, in proper context, of the loss of such a right, be it by overt removal, or affective nullification.

No one I have heard of is trying to ban cars, or driving, because of all the horrific tragedies resulting from drunk driving or texting, there the efforts focus on the bad behavior of the drivers, and not on vilifying cars or car owners in general. Since a person can only drive one car at a time, it little matters how many cars a driver owns when it comes to the tragedies, what matters is how they use it.

And in that light, perhaps it is msn who should be held up to due scrutiny for the way they wield the awesomely powerful, and arguably very dangerous ( when misused ) tool they employ every day .

Just imagine if, like the owner of a gun, msn were held legally liable for everything that resulted from shooting off of an article, all the way to the end point where the article came to a full and complete stop. In other words, what if they were held to the same standard gun owners were for any discharge of the power of the press?


It’s such a misleading number as most own more than one. Hard to find numbers on the percentage of population, by country, that own firearms. In the US that number is 32% - 34% that say they personally own a firearm, 44% live in a household with firearms. About 25% - 30% of the Swiss population, for example, own non-hunting weapons, if hunting weapons are included that number is likely a little higher. Not that far from our numbers are they?


When pointing a finger at a kindergarten classmate and saying “BANG” is grounds for suspension under zero tolerance rules, then yes, this wouldn’t be a stretch.


This vastly overdone “zero toleance” behavior breeds irrational reactions. It never ceases to amaze me how easily human kind can trick it self into acting with double the amount of the very behavior they think they are fighting to eradicate.

I will never forget how many people wanted to respond to the genocide the Nazis carried out, by killing ALL the Germans. But that would simply have been us doubling down on the very behavior we had just finished putting a stop too!

It’s insidiously deceptive and easy to fall prey to becoming the very thing you fought so hard against, in just that way.


As with all contentious issues, it is vitally important that the terms used be defined and agreed upon before beginning the debate. For example, the term “hunting rifle” should be fairly easy to define–but is it? I have successfully hunted with several different rifles, including military surplus, none of which were designed, or sold as “hunting rifles”. Yet, in my possession, they have never been used for any other purpose. Are they “hunting rifles” or not?

When it comes the analyzing data in order to form conclusions, the best and most honest researchers will begin by listing the terms they are using along with a definition of how those terms are being used in context. Anyone who won’t define their terms (or does so ambiguously) or won’t provide access to their source material is a charlatan.


I strongly agree. In fact it is my feeling that a primary tactic being used today, is to deliberately abandon and reject clear definitions, for much the same reason a liar deliberately " muddies the waters" so that the simplest of things can not be plainly seen by anyone.

There is another thread here today with an unfortunately good representation of someone attempting to do just that, that of a judicial nominee who is being asked the simplest of questions, but who attempts to respond to the question by throwing up a verbal smoke screen. A shamefully obvious attempt to avoid answering the question by painting an impossibly complicated picture of the issue with her words.


MSN known liars


I live in California.
I once hosted a Super Bowl/ birthday party in my house.
There were 34 people with three gun owners and combined 12 firearms owned.

1 Like

Last time I had a few friends over, between the 4 of us, the average was likely at least 8. I cannot state exactly as one of them owns quite a good number, and I never asked exactly how many he owns, and one only owns 1.

1 Like

No one should be concerned as to the number of firearms I own as long as defunding the police is being discussed.

Someone needs to take care of me and my family in lieu of the police; it seems that task falls upon me and my hardware.


Is a spanish word for fool or acting clownish or joking around.

1 Like

You forgot staple guns, glue guns &, heat guns.
Don’t look now but we’re up to 140 per 100!


charlatan (n.)

“one who pretends to knowledge, skill, importance, etc.,” 1610s, from French charlatan “mountebank, babbler” (16c.), from Italian ciarlatano “a quack,” from ciarlare “to prate, babble,” from ciarla “chat, prattle,” perhaps imitative of ducks’ quacking.

: one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : FRAUD, FAKERa charlatan willing to do and say virtually anything to remain in the spotlight

ALSO, again

charlatán (Spanish)

Origin & history

Italian ciarlatano


  1. said of someone who talks frivolously


I think “chattering fool” rather nicely sums up many of the people pushing these bogus studies.

Happy Christmas!


Don’t forget grease guns, nail guns, caulking guns, cookie guns, cap guns, and pricing guns. Man! We gotta be pushing 150 at least.