Many guns owned = likely to murder someone?


July 9, 2008, 07:50 AM
You often hear it said in liberal media that "the shooter had X firearms and YYYYY bullets" like that had anything to do with the criminal act (s)He committed. You also often read on THR that people are afraid of being pictured in the media after a justified shooting as a "Survivalist, Gunmaniac, antigovernment, mentally unstable, loon" just for owning five guns (or fifty), actually taking care of those guns and keeping more than one box of ammo in each caliber owned.
My question is, what does the statistics tell us? How many legally owned weapons did the average criminal shooter own? How much ammo?
How many illegally owned weapons did said criminal keep?
How likely is the average owner of five guns or more to use a gun in a HD/SD situation?
How likely is the average owner of one or two guns to use a gun in a HD/SD situation?
How have the courts ruled statistically? have they ruled harsher on gun people in HD/SD cases than on owners of just one or two guns?
What does the statistics say on numbers of guns in the household compared to gunaccidents in the household? is the kids in a household with ten guns more or less likely to accidentally (or on purpose) shoot someone than the kids in a one gun household?

If you enjoyed reading about "Many guns owned = likely to murder someone?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
July 9, 2008, 07:55 AM
"My question is, what does the statistics tell us?"

I doubt anyone has any valid statistics on it. The idea that owning more guns/ammo equals a greater hazard to humanity is simply an articale of faith with liberals; "We don't need no facts, it's so because we say it's so!"

July 9, 2008, 07:57 AM
The media is there to sensationalize a topic so they can keep you tuned in or reading and seeing their advertisers ads.
It doesn't have to mean anything. In most cases it doesn't. It's a provocative statement mean to illicit more questions than anything, or to make people come to a kneejerk conclusion. It means only what you think it does, and if you can't think and take the bait, then you get led along the trail they lay out for you. A trail that leads to more papers bought and more airtime viewed...

It's journalism 101.

July 9, 2008, 08:04 AM
Many guns owned = likely to protect themselves is more accurate.

July 9, 2008, 08:10 AM
The reason i want to see statistics is to get ammo to use against the Antis. If we can show credible statistics telling us that a home with many guns have a low incidence of guns actually fired at humans, then we defuse their arguments, we may not be able to convert the anti, but that for the most part isnt our mission, our mission is to gain the bystanders and fencesitters to our side. Today you have Gunpeople, you have bystanders, you have fencesitters and you have antis. If we can convert every bystander and fencesitter, then it doesnt matter if the number of antis are the same as ever, they are few and they are loud and they must be exposed as the liars and fearmongers that they are, only then will we get the public to actually renounce them.

July 9, 2008, 08:13 AM
The MSM has a vested interest in a frightened population. Tom Gresham on Guntalk mentioned it: many of the MSM personalities kept using the term "frightened" and "scary" and "fear" when discussing the Heller case.

Standing Wolf
July 9, 2008, 08:34 AM
1 gun = a gun
2 guns = an arsenal

July 9, 2008, 08:35 AM
No question it will generate sensational news if ANYTHING happens involving a gun person's guns. I maintain a couple of dozen guns and a couple of thousand rounds of various calibers, plus reloading supplies.

I can see my neighbors saying, "he was quiet and friendly and seemed like such a nice guy. I had no idea!"

July 9, 2008, 08:41 AM
As a general rule, the more guns you own, the more likely you are to be an older person with a stable job and income, while most murders are committed by low-income young people with histories of drug/alcohol abuse. You's need to do a multi-variable analysis to get some actual figures, but the media representation is clearly WAY off.

Just Jim
July 9, 2008, 08:53 AM
Often you see it where the bad guys have an arsenal and the media pounds it into the skulls of the public. What they never say is that the badguys stole the guns or they have them illegaly.

People with criminal records here have no gun rights so when they arrest a gang banger with an "arsenal" it is obviouse they are stolen. Media never says anything about that which implies the banger got them from a store, legaly.


July 9, 2008, 09:24 AM
I always tell people this:

I only have two hands, and two trigger fingers. However, I need to use both hands on one firearm in order to shoot it accurately. So what if I have several guns? What good are the others if I can only shoot one at a time?

The usual reply is something like this:
"Well, you can carry them all at once and quickly switch when one runs out of ammo."


July 9, 2008, 09:27 AM
I've got 4 vehicles. That doesn't mean that I'm going on a driving rampage. It just means that I've got different vehicles for different purposes.

July 9, 2008, 09:27 AM
I don't think you'll find accurate data to correlate. In terms of the general population, I believe that the ratio of gun to population has been shown to have almost no relationship. Gun ownership rates are similiar in the US, Canada, and a couple of Scandinavian countries IIRC; with no correlation in murder rates.

July 9, 2008, 09:53 AM
I tried to post under this twice already.

It was far too politically INcorrect for this board.

Here goes... sigh.

Who is too say what a 'survivalist' really is and who says that it is a good or a bad word? I can't say more here because it is against the RULES.

The same goes for 'anti government' type. Oh well. Again the RULES.

Likely to murder someone due to too many guns or too much ammunition? :banghead:

Same old crapola fed to the sheep by the mass media who wouldn't know a BULK box of 22LR if it jumped up and bit them in the butt and how many cartridges were in it worse off the anti gunners in the ANTI GUN NWO agenda in BOTH parties!

Scare the sheep with the propaganda that they fed to the masses in PAST history and scare them some more. My, how the mass media and the ANTI GUN politicians love to do this. UGH. :cuss:

Survivalists - my forefathers who survived the depression and several WARS!

ANTI government types - our Founding Fathers and anyone who has a clue about 'big government' and TYRANNY!

Venting Catherine who has written about this many times but can't say what she really feels here.

July 9, 2008, 09:53 AM
"90% of statistics can be made to say anything, 50% of the time."

If more guns make it more likely that you are going to kill, then I must be a mass murderer without knowing it.

July 9, 2008, 10:07 AM
I have said for years that the argument by the anti-gun idiots that more guns equals more crime is ridiculous. If it were true then gun shows would be the most crime-ridden places in America.

My house would be a pretty dangerous place, too, if they were correct.

Ask them why big cities with lots of gun laws and lower rates of gun ownership have higher crime rates than rural areas with more guns per capita? Obviously something is wrong with their reasoning... like they are brain-dead Commies.

July 9, 2008, 10:13 AM
More guns = Less crime. A firearms isn't anymore than a club without ammunition.

The media will always sensationalize a story to sell papers or magazines. Why aren't there more articles written about Iraq? No sensation and the message does not promote their political objectives.

July 9, 2008, 10:44 AM
I'm guessing that the statistics - if such could be found - would show exactly the opposite.

Most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, so many/most of them will already be felons. Felons can't buy guns legally, so they are likely to only have one that they stole or bought on the street corner, and probably intend to ditch it after a crime if things get too hot for them.

Not many felons are going to have large gun collections.

July 9, 2008, 12:32 PM
Many guns owned = likes to shoot guns

I don't plan to ever fire one of my guns at a person. I will use my awareness and intelligence to avoid those situations. But at least I will have one in the highly unlikely event that I cannot avoid a life or death confrontation.

July 9, 2008, 12:55 PM
Not many felons are going to have large gun collections.

Agreed. Having more guns would only put a criminal in more hot water if they got caught, as each gun is an additional count of felony possession. I bet more criminals walk around carrying 22's and 9mm's too, it would be interesting the see a breakdown of calibers used in crime, as I doubt that there are many that use 44 magnums or even 45's for that matter.

General Geoff
July 9, 2008, 12:55 PM
statistically, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a direct, inverse correlation to the number of guns a person owns and how likely that person is to commit any kind of violent crime.

Think about it, the more guns a person (legally) owns, the more money said person makes, and/or the more fiscally responsible he/she is. Statistics already show that wealthier people are far less likely to commit crimes other than petty traffic offenses.

Since guns are on average pretty expensive, I'd say that someone owning many guns has some disposable income, and thus has no compelling reason to lead a life of crime.

July 9, 2008, 01:01 PM
Two posts I made from a political forum where this topic came up:

Once we've achieved our goals in gun purchasing we might have a "small arsenal" in our house.

For each person of suitable age there is/will be:

A .22 plinking pistol
A centerfire range pistol
A .22 rifle
A centerfire rifle (which may be an AR-15 because the mild recoil and adjustable stock makes it particularly suitable for growing young people)
A 12 or 20 gauge shotgun depending on size, strength, and personal preference

For adults with carry permits there will also be:
A primary carry gun
A "summer carry"/deep concealment gun

Additionally, there will be a few extras such as the heirloom Japanese military rifle my FIL brought back from WWII, the little .22 with the tip-up barrel that is ineffective for most practical purposes but which suits my desire to have a classic "ladies' gun" and the .410 over and under shotgun my DH has a similar fancy for.

Should a family member take up a serious interest in hunting a black powder weapon or two might also take up residence.

Should a family member start shooting higher-level competition than higher-quality competition guns will be required.

And if we find good deals we're likely to do as a friend of ours has and pick up some extras in the categories most useful for introducing new shooters to the sport to have available as loaners.

Antis are welcome to call 8-15 guns per person in the household an "arsenal" when they explain why its "necessary" for a house that holds 2 people to have 5 bedrooms and 8 TVs, why they own more than 7 days' worth of clothing, why they have a battery-powered drill when the model with the cord was good enough for all those years before, and why fishermen own more than one rod and reel.

Anti-gun scare stories always seem to throw numbers out without any relationship to how the ammo is packaged and sold or to how much is consumed at a time in normal use.

We currently have just shy of 1000 rounds of 9mm in the house right now. That sounds like a lot until you realize that just like buying groceries you *Shock! Gasp!* get a discount for case lots. In the case of the local gun store its a dollar a box. So a case, a little box not as big as your sneakers came in, saved us $10 -- just like when we bought a case of boneless chuck to put into the freezer last month.

As for normal use, ...

The local club had a benchrest .22 match last month. "Bulk pack" .22 comes in boxes of 500 (which are about the size of a roll of toilet paper). To prepare 4 shooters for that match and then compete in it, we used 2 of those boxes (yes, I know, we probably should have bought match ammo for the actual competition but we're on a budget).

When not buying bulk its usually 50 rounds to the box. Shotgun shells are 25/box and a single shooter out for a casual hour or so of breaking clay will sure shoot one box and may, if the range isn't too crowded and the recoil pad is good, may shoot 3-4 boxes.

Just the other day, when sighting my Mark III in at 25 yards and comparing 2 brands of ammo for the tightness of the groups I shot 150 rounds myself in about 2 hours. Not counting what my DH and DD shot through my gun or what DS#1 put through the rifle to sight it in after remounting the scope.

Yet, if we stacked up all the boxes 5 shooters used in the past month for every form of firearms we own the pile wouldn't be the size of my mid-tower desktop case. If it weren't for the bulk of the shotgun shells I could probably load those 3-5K rounds in my purse. Not that I'd want to try to lift the weight.

A pile that small isn't an arsenal by any faintly reasonable standard.

July 9, 2008, 01:06 PM
The people I know with a lot of guns (as in hundreds) tend to be self-employed, wealthy, law-abiding people, generally married with families.

Smart, rich people with ethical, goal-oriented, conservative lifestyles and a lot to lose are simply not a dangerous demographic, statistically.

July 9, 2008, 01:08 PM
Over 300 million people in the US.
Over 200 million guns in the US.
Millions of households with guns in the US.
Most gun owners own more than one gun and many own 5 or more.

July 9, 2008, 01:20 PM
Who is too say what a 'survivalist' really is and who says that it is a good or a bad word? I can't say more here because it is against the RULES.

The same goes for 'anti government' type. Oh well. Again the RULES.

If you are not suicidal you are a survivalist.

Anti-government? If you define Anti-government as not being happy with the government; then somewhere between 87 and 91 percent of the current US population is defined as such per recent polls.

Anti-gun; Pre-Heller polls indicated 75% of folks understood the fundamental right at question. Not sure that make them pro's though. For sure the 4 wrong-headed, black robed Statists, in dissent have made their positions clear.

The MSM is failing in glorious proportion; though they continue to sink both their credibility and their ratings in their myopic pursuit of utopia.

July 9, 2008, 03:31 PM

July 9, 2008, 03:40 PM

New-speak for "main-stream-media"; ie. TV, newspapers, etc.

July 9, 2008, 03:43 PM
I just sit and laugh to myself when I hear those terms of endearment from the antis. One of my brothers friends, decided that I was going to be one of those "white guys who lives in a compound in Montana". His reason, I own three guns.... I must be nuts.

They say "gun nut" like it's a bad thing. :D

La Pistoletta
July 9, 2008, 03:44 PM
I don't trust Statistics. I talked to him once and he said the average family has 2.4 kids. Now, I don't know what kind of freaks the Averages are but I ain't never seen a "0.4" kid.

July 9, 2008, 03:44 PM
I was going to be one of those "white guys who lives in a compound in Montana".

Like Ted Turner or something?

July 9, 2008, 03:53 PM
Like Ted Turner or something?

If by being like Ted Turner I am rich and have a huge estate... I could only be so lucky. :D

July 9, 2008, 06:13 PM
beware the man with one gun, he knows how to use it

July 9, 2008, 10:25 PM
I know my situation is not, in and of itself, statistically significant, but I have a bunch of guns, more than 50, and I haven't shot anybody, not even one person yet. Maybe I am just not holding up my end. How many people am I supposed to shoot if I own, say, 65 guns? As soon as I get a good number, I can start. I don't want to be a slacker. What about ammo? Am I supposed to shoot more people if I have more than 5000 rounds in my house? Help me out guys. Nobody ever told me I was supposed to shoot people just because I owned a bunch of guns. I feel like a real idiot. Some other gun owner probably had to shoot a couple extra people because I didn't shoot my share. I promise to shoot as many people as I am supposed to depending on how many guns I have and how many rounds of ammo I have if you guys will just let me know how to calculate it.

Thanks for your help and I promise to hold up my end of this deal. I don't want to leave some other gun owner holding the bag for my failure.

Fast Ed

July 9, 2008, 10:43 PM
A few years back, when I was living in Gainesville, FL, the Gainesville Sun reported that "a cache of weapons" had been found in the home of a man arrested on suspicion of a minor crime. The guns? Turns out there were *GASP* three of them: a shotgun, a rifle, and a pistol. Three guns for the entire household!

My husband and I laughed so hard we almost fell on the floor when we read that. If the man in question had a "cache of weapons", what we had would surely have been characterized as an armory.

July 9, 2008, 10:47 PM
(conversation with non-gun pal at work)

"I don't get it--WHY do you need more than one gun?"

"You work around the house a lot, right? How many screwdrivers do YOU own---WHY do you NEED more than one?

ding-ding-ding--guns ARE tools--and are my hobby--I ALWAYS want a new one!

The media craves a story to tell----in the recent past they have been able to talk about the 'vast arsenal' and other such onerous things that inflate the story.
Now, with Heller, we may see less--it may be more matter-of-fact. I don't know that really good, solid data has ever been recorded along the lines of your question; maybe the ground is fertile for someone pursing a higher degree to do a masters or doctorate on such a subject. Maybe we are past the fear mongering about guns from the last 40 years. (remember--in the US, Pres. Kennedy was a life member in the NRA and NO ONE questioned the motives of gun collectors often).

My gut feeling is that most owners of 'gun collections' are very, VERY, boring and law-abiding people. It's funny here in the US as you can--lawfully--own 100s of guns WITHOUT ANY federal license at all--OR you can get a 'collectors' "C and R type 3" which allows you a few discounts and such but no real 'special' rights--many of us have one 'just because' anyway.

July 9, 2008, 10:54 PM
My "favorite" line, usually on "America's Most Wanted" or one of the CSI shows - 'He made his own BULLETS" just because the individual reloads.

July 9, 2008, 11:31 PM
The people I know with a lot of guns (as in hundreds) tend to be self-employed, wealthy, law-abiding people, generally married with families.

I'm 26, married, and in the mid double digits. I'm neither wealthy nor self employed....and if my collection continues to increase at the rate is has in the last five years.....well...I'll be in the triple digits within the next 5-6 years. Most of my collection was accumulated with me making the whopping sum of $12/hour and my wife making $17/hour. It's genuinely not that difficult so long as you don't think you need new vehicles/tv/furniture/appliances/etc---it doesn't cost that much to live well, and comfortably at that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Many guns owned = likely to murder someone?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!