Why does this guy need so many weapons?

Is this man preparing for a war? Who in their right mind needs this many guns?

I think this guys stayed of mind is summed up pretty good when he described it as 'activate' the first compartment... and it really was basically just a cabinet door opening.

Some people just REALLY wish their lives were a movie.

> Who in their right mind needs this many guns?

Gun enthusiasts? People who wonder if the USA infrastructure will still be operational in 15 yrs? People who have suffered a violent crime? People who have had a family member in a violent crime? People who have been threatened? Shooting instructors? Gun club managers?

Who in their right mind needs so much _______4 wheelers_____, ______motorcycles____,_____telescope gear____, _____coin collections_____,_________woodworking equipment______.

One word.

Kids.

This guy is an idiot to have his guns unsecured.

@radx just sent me a link -- http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/

This thing would not stop a kid.

A gun cabinet that stores books. Interesting idea.

What kind of amateur keep his Uzi in the bottom drawer. What an idiot!

*engineering

Adding video to channels (Engineering) - requested by brycewi19.

I wonder if gun owners ever get buyer's remorse.

I spent over 5,000 bucks on these guns, all I need now is an excuse a reason to use them.

>> ^deathcow:


Who in their right mind needs so much _______4 wheelers_____, ______motorcycles____,_____telescope gear____, _____coin collections_____,_________woodworking equipment______.


Not a single item listed here is an instrument with the sole use of killing other beings.

where the hell are the grenades?!

But coin collections don't kill people...
>> ^deathcow:

> Who in their right mind needs this many guns?
Gun enthusiasts? People who wonder if the USA infrastructure will still be operational in 15 yrs? People who have suffered a violent crime? People who have had a family member in a violent crime? People who have been threatened? Shooting instructors? Gun club managers?
Who in their right mind needs so much _______4 wheelers_____, ______motorcycles____,_____telescope gear____, _____coin collections_____,_________woodworking equipment______.

You could kill with any of those items.

>> ^deathcow:

You could kill with any of those items.


You let a kid play with a coin collection, or telescopes or chisels and by and large, they are not at huge danger of killing themselves or someone else.

Let a kid play with a collection of guns on the other hand.

Trying to say that anything is deadly when used in certain ways is a childish argument to deflect from the problem that guns are designed to kill people, the other things are not inherently dangerous.

And people like this freak me the fuck out.

I get the thing about collecting items. But having a collection of weapons that kids think would be awesome to play with (because what kid DOESN'T play shoot em ups?) just would make me so much fucking more nervous than any perceived threat of home invasion or the country collapsing into anarchy.

The cabinetry is lovely. The secret compartments opened by magnets are cool.

But I would not feel at all fucking safe storing what he has stored in there if there were kids around. As mentioned above, they work out how to get into shit.

No key, the ability to get to all of those guns AND AMMO with some fiddling... is scary.

I have personally witnessed one murder and one attempted murder, both committed with handguns. I have yet to witness a "defensive" use of a handgun.

There are just too many morons out there, for the number of guns circulating around.

>> ^bareboards2:

One word.
Kids.
This guy is an idiot to have his guns unsecured.
@radx just sent me a link -- http://www.technologyreview.com/
news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
This thing would not stop a kid.


Who said he had kids? WTF is wrong with you people? He likes guns. He probably enjoys collecting guns, (one of the points @deathcow was making that, apparently, flew right over several of your heads). Maybe he even enjoys shooting them. So what? You don't like guns? Fine. Don't buy them. JFC, so many paranoid leaps of logic here.

@spoco2
Guns can kill when people USE them to kill. It's a childish argument to claim that all guns are inherently dangerous. The vast, VAST majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. Unless you're claiming this guy is a killer, or, as @L0cky lamely implied, wants to use them to justify the money he spent. Maybe he's a terrorist! There are about 350 million guns in this country and about 250 million vehicles, yet the number of fatalities for each is about the same each year (and over half of the gun fatalities are suicides). Why are you so worried about guns? I won't even mention alcohol, electricity, bathtubs, McDonald's, and icy sidewalks. Just because something isn't "designed to kill people" doesn't mean it isn't "inherently dangerous". Hunting rifles aren't "designed to kill people". Are they safe for kids? And what is the deal with using a red herring like kids? Using kids playing with loaded guns as the nails in your soapbox is almost as silly as decrying automobiles because they are dangerous for kids to play in with the engine running. And, again, WHO SAID HE HAD KIDS?

I don't own guns. I don't like to shoot guns. They don't do anything for me, although I would consider getting one some day if SHTF began to seem inevitable. I'm definitely not a fan of guns, but some of you people are just ridiculous.

Where does he store his paranoia?

@Fletch

There are about 350 million guns in this country and about 250 million vehicles, yet the number of fatalities for each is about the same each year

I think it's kind of cool. Dude can store whatever he wants. Honestly, if he's going to have those guns in his domicile (which he is free to do) I'm glad they are in a place that is unlikely to be identified by a burglar, and thus they are unlikely fall into the hands of criminals. I actually prefer this to a safe, unless the safe is immovable.

Why does this guy need to justify his collection? Would you guys react differently if they were swords?

@Fletch I wasn't clear.

This guy is selling this cabinet. He may not have kids but the buyers may have kids.

It is a fact that some gun owners ARE irresponsible gun owners. A gun safe is the only thing to have in a household with children. Responsible gun owners with children would not buy this product.

In the past year or so, here in the State of Washington, TWO police officers were careless with their guns around their children. A three year old boy killed his 6 year old sister with a service pistol left unattended in a car while the parents went to pay for the gas. A ten year old girl shot herself in the leg when her father left his service pistol on his nightstand -- just one week after a gun safety class where he was reprimanded IN CLASS for handling a gun carelessly.

I grew up with guns. I was taught gun safety. I have no problem with most guns.

And there is plenty of evidence of people being stupid with guns. This guy who is selling a gun related product would do well to have a warning that his unlocked cabinet is not safe around children.

I think the molding at the top is the locking mechanism.

I'm amused at two assertions: guns are designed to kill people, and that kids think guns are fun to play with.

Children who are not taught properly about firearms are, generally, viewing them as toys to play with. Children who are properly taught about firearm safety, use, etc., are much more likely to view them properly; as very dangerous tools.

SOME firearms—guns—are, indeed, designed to kill people. I would suggest that the projectile is the part that has seen more development for human lethality than the firearm itself. There are parts of the country where carrying a firearm is distinctly in the realm of protection of self and family. No, not from acts of violence by other people, but by animal predators. Lots of places have bears and such wander across the porches of people's houses. Regularly.

I will, however, strongly agree that the lack of obvious gun lockout devices (I only saw one on the first watch of the video) is concerning, but if he doesn't have children himself, and none come to visit, that leaves children accessing his house without his knowledge…

As far as the number of firearms, do we know if he has a wife? Are they all HIS guns, or is that collection of guns owned by multiple people?

As a follow up… The uzi is also locked out.

For the number of firearms, I'm baffled by the small quantity of magazines I'm seeing… Weird.

You know taking the deathcows arguments into account (though I don't agree with them), Guns are meant to be fired. The guy only has two arms. I've heard the argument "what about his friends?" If they wanted to fire a gun they probably already have one. So either the guy has to grow more arms or hes just carrying around alot of extra weight.

Buy more clips and less guns.

@spoco2 .... Sorry bud, I have to disagree with you there. Potential international enemies will think TWICE before invading America because they are the most heavily armed civilian population on Earth. Guns may not be a good thing, but looking at it from from that angle, they're a bloody necessary evil.

*Climbs off soapbox.

>> ^spoco2:

Guns have no upside.
At all.

>> ^Barseps:

Potential international enemies will think TWICE before invading America because they are the most heavily armed civilian population on Earth.

This isn't paranoia?

The USA has the largest military in the world, by a factor of about a zillion. How exactly do you envisage this nightmare scenario playing out, and who is the enemy?

Mexicans? Canadians?

If it's anyone else I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to enlist in the army, learn how to use a weapon, and do your part as a soldier rather than a cowboy.

[spoiler]It's not going to happen. Really.[/spoiler]

>> ^colt45:

Children who are not taught properly about firearms are, generally, viewing them as toys to play with. Children who are properly taught about firearm safety, use, etc., are much more likely to view them properly; as very dangerous tools.


So you're offering free classes? And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?

I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!

I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).

You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.

>> ^Barseps:

@spoco2 .... Sorry bud, I have to disagree with you there. Potential international enemies will think TWICE before invading America because they are the most heavily armed civilian population on Earth. Guns may not be a good thing, but looking at it from from that angle, they're a bloody necessary evil.
Climbs off soapbox.
>> ^spoco2:
Guns have no upside.
At all.



Really? Let's let your hypothetical scenario play out.

Some other massive country with huge resources (let's say it rhymes with vagina) decides to invade the U.S.
Fuck knows why, given that they could simply buy you and be done with it. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that dfinitely not china whoever manages to overwhelm over 1 million of the best equipped, highly trained military in the history of the world on their home turf. Do you really think a bunch of amateur paranoid nutjobs are gonna stop them?

Watchyou gonna do with all them guns all them guns inside yo trunk!
I'm gonna gonna shoot you son, shoot you son because it's fun!
It's fun, it's fun, it's fun. I love my baby guns!

Over-armed weirdos!

I think it's a fantastic piece of woodworking. Very clever design. The intent is to hide guns from thieves that break-in to his home (presumably when he isn't there, otherwise this guy would shoot them).

I also think he needs more books and less guns.

It wouldn't be too hard to add-in a hidden combo lock or key lock for customers that want an extra level of protection. If there are kids in the house, then every gun should have a trigger-lock (which kids might find the key anyway).

Main disadvantage I see of this design versus a gun safe would be that this is in no way fireproof or waterproof.

Well its certainly no "secret" that this dude is a sociopath mwahahahahaha

>> ^L0cky:
So you're offering free classes? And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?
I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!
I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.


I don't know enough about firearms, and own none. I'm hardly qualified. Also, please stop putting words in my mouth. I want to live in a civilized country, where people understand PROPER use of, and care for, firearms, including safety, control, and discipline.

Your obsession with murder is a bit concerning. Firearms are very effective at hunting. They are great at providing food from that use. Why you are so obsessed with war and murder, I really don't know. Should you be on a watch list?

I was raised around guns, I've been trained with guns through the Hunter Core program. Purely for hunting game. (not human targets on the shooting range - mostly tin cans and paper circle targets.)

I've seen rampant gun use by teens because they thought guns were cool. I've seen my dog get his eye shot out because the neighbor kid didn't know the gun he just loaded was loaded. I've seen powder burns up the arm of a friend who thought it would be cool to saw off a shot gun and fire it. I was standing there when a good friend fired a rifle and the barrel exploded showering us all in shrapnel as it ripped apart his ear drums.

I was trained to handle guns, how to hold them, and all the safety and respect that anyone needs to handle guns. But that doesn't change the fact that they can be dangerous.

I live in Canada, yes, I could go out and get a gun any time I wanted, but our culture on guns is different. I don't feel the need to own one and I know the guy next to me isn't holding a concealed one. I have never let my kids have any toy gun that looked like a gun. (Nerf is ok) Guns are never toys - ever - and I've taught my kids that their entire life, just like matches and fire aren't toys. You just don't mess around with them.

I don't own a gun now nor do I ever see myself owning one. I like the culture of not needing to own one. I can understand a rifle and a shotgun for hunting (locked in a gun safe when not used.) I don't understand and cannot support the necessity for handguns and automatic weapons. Even semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary. Having an Uzi is just plain ridiculous as it's only intended use is for killing humans. That's just how I feel.

On the flip side....

I do understand the need for a militia. They are an integral part of a free society. the last defense against invasion and more so against government forces when the military is turned against the people.

I just don't believe military weapons should be kept in a home environment. There are any number of places they can be stored but at the very least - a proper gun locker with a lock is the only alternative. I don't care whether you have kids living in the home or not. I also don't think anyone should be in possession of military weapons unless they are registered with the militia.

Around 6% of US Americans hunt, yet around 34% own a gun; therefore around 82% of gun owners own a gun for something other than hunting. Bringing up hunting is just avoiding the issue.

Besides, I don't think that guy's UZI is for hunting rabbits.

Also, you don't need to teach children how to safely use firearms if they don't have access to firearms. Kinda like how you don't need to teach them how to safely use a particle accelerator, even though they too are dangerous.
>> ^colt45:

>> ^L0cky:
So you're offering free classes? And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?
I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!
I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.

I don't know enough about firearms, and own none. I'm hardly qualified. Also, please stop putting words in my mouth. I want to live in a civilized country, where people understand PROPER use of, and care for, firearms, including safety, control, and discipline.
Your obsession with murder is a bit concerning. Firearms are very effective at hunting. They are great at providing food from that use. Why you are so obsessed with war and murder, I really don't know. Should you be on a watch list?

So those 82% are all owning guns for murder or war, then? Let's just take this absurd myopic view one step further: Rocks are dangerous weapons that need to be banned! They are readily available to children and highly dangerous!
>> ^L0cky:

Around 6% of US Americans hunt, yet around 34% own a gun; therefore around 82% of gun owners own a gun for something other than hunting. Bringing up hunting is just avoiding the issue.
Besides, I don't think that guy's UZI is for hunting rabbits.
Also, you don't need to teach children how to safely use firearms if they don't have access to firearms. Kinda like how you don't need to teach them how to safely use a particle accelerator, even though they too are dangerous.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I have personally witnessed one murder and one attempted murder, both committed with handguns. I have yet to witness a "defensive" use of a handgun.
There are just too many morons out there, for the number of guns circulating around.

Oh, so since you haven't personally witnessed a gun being used in self defense, it must not happen at all. I personally haven't witnessed a police officer stopping a crime, so why do we need them?

>> ^arekin:

You know taking the deathcows arguments into account (though I don't agree with them), Guns are meant to be fired. The guy only has two arms. I've heard the argument "what about his friends?" If they wanted to fire a gun they probably already have one. So either the guy has to grow more arms or hes just carrying around alot of extra weight.
Buy more clips and less guns.


I like to play video games, but by your logic, one game is enough. Also, stamp collectors, they only have two eyes, so why do they need so many stamps?

>> ^L0cky:
And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?
I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!
I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.


No one said anything about teaching a child how to use a gun. You have lots of things in your house that are deadly to kids (knives, chemicals, etc.), and I hope you would teach them that those things are dangerous and not to be played with rather than hiding them and hoping they wont find them. Why would a gun be any different?

>> ^jimnms:
No one said anything about teaching a child how to use a gun. You have lots of things in your house that are deadly to kids (knives, chemicals, etc.), and I hope you would teach them that those things are dangerous and not to be played with rather than hiding them and hoping they wont find them. Why would a gun be any different?


I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.

The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.

If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.

So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one, that doesn't require paranoid delusions such as:

1. The country being invaded by a foreign military that's sophisticated enough to get on land in large numbers without enough forewarning to enable a military defense; or are able to overcome a military defense (for the US that would be the world's largest military defense by an order of magnitude) - yet inept enough to be overwhelmed by a rag tag, uncoordinated army of citizens.

2. The country suddenly turning into a military dictatorship without warning (for the US that would be the world's largest military dictatorship by an order of magnitude so you'd really be kind of screwed anyway).

3. Everybody needing to suddenly hunt for rabbits with UZIs.

4. Maybe something to do with zombies.

I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.


The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

I can't really budge on this unless you can somehow convince me that it's not preferable to live in a western society where almost all people have never even seen a real gun, therefore removing all their associated problems.

That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

>> ^colt45:

I'm amused at two assertions: guns are designed to kill people, and that kids think guns are fun to play with.
Children who are not taught properly about firearms are, generally, viewing them as toys to play with. Children who are properly taught about firearm safety, use, etc., are much more likely to view them properly; as very dangerous tools.

>> ^colt45:

So those 82% are all owning guns for murder or war, then?


No, mostly a misguided idea and self fulfilling need for self defense.

It's a fallacy to frame the argument as a "need". It's an argument from a position of ignorance. I seem to like bicycles and computers. Why does anybody need so many bicycles and computers? What, am I going to ride them all at once? Am I going to hack the government and seduce pre-teens online? Nope. I just like bicycles and computers and don't let go of them easily.

Same goes for gun/knife enthusiasts. It's something they feel a strong affinity with. Shooting guns is a hell of a lot of fun, and, as with just about anything mechanical, knowing their specs and maintenance is highly attractive to many people. Those people end up with a lot of guns because they like them. They don't need to justify anything beyond that.

That said, this particular storage system is weak as hell.

Nice shelving and cabinet system. But putting this video on the internet just gave away all of its secrets.

as for everything else.

Guns are a part of U.S. culture. like Cowboys, Cars and invading small countries that look at us funny.
Why people collect them or own them does not matter. They can so they do. Your opinions on it also do not matter. Simple saying you do not like them is more than enough. Forcing your opinion on the matter just makes it more likely people will ignore you or blow you off as some self righteous ass. Just like most who will read this will do the same to me.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Why people collect them or own them does not matter. They can so they do. Your opinions on it also do not matter. Simple saying you do not like them is more than enough. Forcing your opinion on the matter just makes it more likely people will ignore you or blow you off as some self righteous ass. Just like most who will read this will do the same to me.


agreed

> You let a kid play with a coin collection, or telescopes or chisels and by and large,
> they are not at huge danger of killing themselves or someone else.

> Let a kid play with a collection of guns on the other hand.

You're a bad parent !!!

Do you let your kids play with lighters and nail polish remover too? Sheesh!

@jimnms Dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say that guns used for self defense never happened.

I'd rant a bit over putting words in someone else's mouth, or setting up a strawman argument, but based on the evidence, you wouldn't understand that either.

>> ^colt45:

So those 82% are all owning guns for murder or war, then? Let's just take this absurd myopic view one step further: Rocks are dangerous weapons that need to be banned! They are readily available to children and highly dangerous!
>> ^L0cky:
Around 6% of US Americans hunt, yet around 34% own a gun; therefore around 82% of gun owners own a gun for something other than hunting. Bringing up hunting is just avoiding the issue.
Besides, I don't think that guy's UZI is for hunting rabbits.
Also, you don't need to teach children how to safely use firearms if they don't have access to firearms. Kinda like how you don't need to teach them how to safely use a particle accelerator, even though they too are dangerous.


Wow. That definitely made my top 10 list of "Really stupid things that I actually read on the internet".

Seriously, when was the last time a kid accidently threw a rock and blew his friends brains out? Accidently put a hole through their own foot / hand / leg?

Sure, they can be used as a close up blunt damage weapon. However, in order to actually kill someone with a rock, it would generally have to be pre-meditated (i.e. kill them when they're asleep, because if you try to kill someone with a rock when they're concious and healthy, it probably wont go well.)

I can think of countless stories over the years involving some idiot irrational gun owner going out and killing someone they knew nothing about, because they felt threatened. Lately, the one I remember is of Trayvon Martin. You know, the kid shot for eating skittles on a street he didn't live on.

But let's go ahead and get back to the point @spoco2 was making earlier. Rocks have existed since the beginning of time. They serve no purpose, they have no design, or goal. They're simply there.

Guns, on the other hand, were designed as an instrument of death. In no part of the gun design was someone thinking "AND it'll function as a paperweight!". It was just another step further in the direction of long ranged combat, specifically for ending the life of another human being.

That's not to say that everybody who does own a gun has it for the sole reason of killing someone, after all, people still collect swords, axes, fascinating weapons from throughout the ages.

But I can't honestly see the amount of collectors being too high.

This idea of being a collector is providing no justification whatsoever.

In countries where guns are not freely available; people who like to collect things, collect something else. Like stamps, or Star Wars figures.

When the CIA turn up to investigate my nuclear bombs I'll just shrug and say "hey, I like nuclear bombs, so I collect them".

I don't doubt there are people who collect guns because they like them, and they're fun to shoot, and they like their history, and admire their design; the guy in this video is obviously one of them.

It doesn't justify a society with a proliferation of firearms.

I prefer shooting guns at paper targets and clay pigeons, not people.

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?>> ^L0cky:

This idea of being a collector is providing no justification whatsoever.
In countries where guns are not freely available; people who like to collect things, collect something else. Like stamps, or Star Wars figures.
When the CIA turn up to investigate my nuclear bombs I'll just shrug and say "hey, I like nuclear bombs, so I collect them".
I don't doubt there are people who collect guns because they like them, and they're fun to shoot, and they like their history, and admire their design; the guy in this video is obviously one of them.
It doesn't justify a society with a proliferation of firearms.

Like Switzerland, right?

>> ^L0cky:

That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?

>> ^L0cky:

You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.

>> ^bmacs27:

Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.



Hence why I said most.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?


Personally I'm undecided. I think sword deaths and injuries may be rare; I can't find any statistical data on them, which in itself possibly supports that; or they just get thrown in with knives and other sharp objects; and a wholesale banning of sharp things would be highly impractical.

They are practically banned in Japan though; who would have thought?

They are also banned in Washington DC; and in the UK (unless you jump through lots of hoops proving you are a genuine collector).

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?
>> ^L0cky:
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.



I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring specifically to teaching children how to use firearms, which was done by both the NPFL in the Liberian civil war; and pretty much everyone in Mozambique's civil war, and those children (as young as 10) were actually used in the wars.

It's horrifying, and probably a bit of an extreme reference, but my point is we shouldn't need to teach children to use guns in the first place.

>> ^L0cky:

>> ^bmacs27:
Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.


Hence why I said most.


Which is what I figured, however, if you take a look at the noise in the numbers, Switzerland is within noise of Iceland, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Would you still call it most?

For every enthusiast per capita the US has like this guy, Switzerland has one with half as many guns. Does it really make a difference? Is Europe really that different?

Frankly, I come from the North East. I still feel an attachment to the revolution, and if you think about, it wasn't that long ago. The minutemen weren't paranoid, they were prudent. And they were packing cannon, the nuclear arms of their day. While I think it's worth carefully considering where lines are drawn, e.g. "small" arms, I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media. Sure they're dangerous. But so are lots of things. Accepting a dangerous world is the cost of living in a free society.

I'm sympathetic to the view that "well regulated militias" should probably keep large stores of arms away from their residences, and certainly children. However, we have no strong evidence this guy has kids around. I guess we can quibble about fire, however there is not particularly much in the way of ammunition present. Remember, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Personally, I suspect this guy is a gun salesman. That would explain the quantity of guns, and the relative lack of ammunition. Further, it would explain the youtube video that appears to be an advertisement for a gun cabinet. I don't begrudge this guy his vocation.

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

>> ^bmacs27:
I still feel an attachment to the revolution, and if you think about, it wasn't that long ago. The minutemen weren't paranoid, they were prudent.

I understand the sentiment. Something along the lines of the principal that if the government prevents you from owning firearms, they are preventing you from overthrowing them. This can be interpreted as a form of oppression.

Maybe that's the real reason the US spends so much on it's military?

>> ^deathcow:

You could kill with any of those items.


Not at 600+ rounds per minute, 200 meters away, you can't. Hell, and that's just the Uzi.

>> ^bmacs27:


Why does this guy need to justify his collection? Would you guys react differently if they were swords?


Again, 200 meters, 600+ rounds per minute.



Mates, go check out the gun deaths per capita in regions like the UK, Canada, or Australia. As convincing as many peoples arguments are against firearm regulation, and truly there have been some logical and justified points raised here, the statistics simply don't support it. Often by measures of times ten to twenty five reductions in homicide alone.

Forgive me for not having cited specific sources here, the only reputable statistics I seem able to find possess vast differences in time between countries being compared. I wouldn't want to seem as though I'm cherry picking facts, so I encourage you to research this for yourself.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.
The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.
You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC, unfortunately I can't link to them because they are generated by a search and the URLs generated are session specific. The statistics, as detailed as they are, don't state weather the child was educated in the use of firearms, but accidental firearms death in children is quite low. According to the CDC, between 1999 and 2010 the leading cause of accidental deaths to children ages 1-4 is motor vehicle accidents (28.9%), poisoning is 8th (2.4%) and firearms is 12th (1.0%). Going up to the 5-9 age range MVA is still the leading cause of accidental death (46.7%), with poisoning still 8th (1.8%) and firearms still 12th (1.5%). You can look them up yourself at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control.

>> ^L0cky:
If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.
Having a gun in your home does not make it the most dangerous thing in the house, and the statistics I posted above back me up. There are plenty of things even in a gunless household that are lethal if a child gets its hands on it. I would argue that a gun is far safer because it can be unloaded and therefore be rendered harmless if a kid gets a hold of it. A bottle of drain cleaner, bug spray, bottle of medicine, etc. is always going to be dangerous if a child gets a hold of it. With those items, all you can do is lock them away in a safe place where a child can't get them until they are old enough to understand that they are dangerous. Any responsible gun owner would treat a gun the same as any other dangerous object in the home, by unloading it and/or locking it up until the child is old enough to be taught that it's dangerous and not something to play with.

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough. I was taught by my father as his father taught him, and I've never killed anyone on purpose or accident.

>> ^L0cky:
So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one...
I can't speak for every gun owner, but I have several reasons. I personally own four guns, two rifles and two pistols. It's a hobby, I like to shoot them, but I also own them for self defense. I also like archery and own a bow. A bow is also an instrument of war and designed for the taking of human life as well as hunting, just as a rifle, but how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns? I don't hunt, but I have friends that do, so there's another reason for you.

I also have gone through the steps to acquire a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state. I think of it as insurance. I have car insurance, but I don't intend to get in a wreck, and I also have home owners insurance though I don't intend for my home to get damaged or destroyed. I don't carry a gun intending to kill someone, but just like car and home insurance I have it just in case.

>> ^L0cky:
I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.

The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun. The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun, and up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year, most of which do not involve discharging the weapon.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired." [source]

>> ^L0cky:
There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.
If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

OK, we can all stop right there. After that statement, you have shown how delusional you really are and anything you say can't be trusted. That "statistic" is flat out untrue, and it must have hurt pulling that out of your ass. Here are the death statistics for 25 year old US citizens from the CDC from 1999-2010:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 12%
Accident by Firearm = 0.4%

As I said in my other post, the pages can't be linked to, but you can use the search at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control and look it up yourself.

>> ^L0cky:
You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I agree, vehicles are beneficial to society, but they are also the leading cause of accidental death. Most of those deaths are caused by people improperly using their vehicles. You advocate taking guns away from all citizens, so in your perfect world only police and the military would have them. Would you also like to remove personal vehicle ownership for all citizens and only allow travel to be by government operated mass transit? It would certainly save a lot of lives.

Guns have played a beneficial role in modern society. Lots of free societies have come from its citizens taking up arms against their oppressive governments. You could argue that we no longer need guns in free societies, but you can also argue that without access to guns, what is to stop the government from becoming oppressive to its people again.

>> ^Murgy:

>> ^deathcow:
You could kill with any of those items.
Not at 600+ rounds per minute, 200 meters away, you can't. Hell, and that's just the Uzi.

For those of you with your undies in a wad over the Uzi, I can assure you that if this guy legally purchased it, it is either not a fully automatic Uzi, or if it is fully automatic, he has gone through some serious background checks and paid some serious money for the permits to legally own it.

>> ^jimnms:

You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC

I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).

It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.

In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.

Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.

>> ^jimnms:

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough.

I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.

>> ^jimnms:

how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns?


Like swords, they have nowhere near the same problem; and there isn't any good data about what they're used for. My guess would be they're mostly owned for sport, but like swords I don't know.

>> ^jimnms:

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun.

I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.

>> ^jimnms:

The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun

That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.

>> ^jimnms:

up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year


This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns. I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.

What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.

>> ^jimnms:

You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes.

You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?

>> ^jimnms:

The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]


Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.

>> ^jimnms:
That "statistic" is flat out untrue, and it must have hurt pulling that out of your ass.

I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with

The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.

Statisticslol

>> ^jimnms:

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not feel the need to own them for self defense, therefore supporting lenient gun control policies that contribute to a high rate of injury and death.

One can dream

>> ^L0cky:
I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).
It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.
I took a look at the pdf, and while the charts are nice, they cover various date ranges and present their results in different formats, and I think you're misinterpreting them. What I did was use the search feature and look at the raw data. You can also search for non death injuries, but gun related non deadly injuries, accidental or intentional, doesn't even make the top 20, and it doesn't show anything below that.

>> ^L0cky:
In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.
You just said that your source doesn't show non death injuries, yet now you're claiming 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year. You claim to be getting your sources from the same place, but the data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2010 the average homicide by firearm is 12,807 deaths per year. If you add accidental deaths involving firearms the total comes to 21,146 which accounts for 9.6% of all accidental and intentional deaths (this does not include suicide, illness and disease related deaths).

>> ^L0cky:
Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.
We already have plenty of gun control laws. More laws are not going to stop someone that has no intention of obeying them. You obviously did not read the whole article I linked to as it points out that "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation.

>> ^L0cky:
I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.
No one said that you need to teach children to use guns to justify their existence. You were a kid once (or still are), and at a certain age didn't you do the opposite of everything your parents said? If there is going to be a gun in a house, even if they are told it's dangerous and not to be played with and you do your best to lock it up and keep it away from them, if they do get their hands on it wouldn't it be better that they knew how to properly handle it so they don't end up adding to the accidental death by firearm statistic? Cars are dangerous too, but we teach our kids how to be safe in and around cars (wear your seat belt, look both ways before crossing street, etc.), why are you so freaked out about teaching a kid gun safety?

Your philosophy that kids shouldn't be taught how to use guns because guns are bad is basically the same as abstinence only sex education, AKA teaching ignorance.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.
I said I own guns for many reasons, self defense being one of them. You still seem to be confused about why someone chooses to carry a gun for self defense. It looks to me based on what you've written is that you assume someone carries a gun only to protect themselves from other gun owners. As I already pointed out, only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. I carry to protect myself from 100% of crimes.

>> ^L0cky:
That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^L0cky:
This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns.
I don't know what more you expect, a crime was in progress, a lawfully armed citizen stopped it and it was reported to the police. What your asking isn't possible as the only way to know what would have happened in the other situations is to invent a time machine.

>> ^L0cky:
I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.
What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.
If guns don't reduce crime, then why do we give them to the police? Once more back to that article you didn't read:

"In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met certain requirements. Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course. Florida's homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law. Through June 1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida. Only 530, or 0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits. This indicates that the law is serving the law abiding. Only l6 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm."

Seeing as how the discussion is about the widespread use and ownership of guns, your comparison is illogical. Would it not stand to reason that incidences in which planes were purposefully flown into buildings would increase if piloting licenses were no longer mandatory? Seeing as how accidental death by firearms as been represented in the relevant statistics, I suppose one wouldn't even be required to include the prerequisite of purposeful, either.


>> ^jimnms:
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^Murgy:

Seeing as how the discussion is about the widespread use and ownership of guns, your comparison is illogical. Would it not stand to reason that incidences in which planes were purposefully flown into buildings would increase if piloting licenses were no longer mandatory? Seeing as how accidental death by firearms as been represented in the relevant statistics, I suppose one wouldn't even be required to include the prerequisite of purposeful, either.

The topic of the discussion has nothing to do with my point about ignoring statistics. If you are going to make a statement about violent crimes and back it up with statistics, you can't just ignore a large part of the statistic.