A friend and I were having a conversation along the lines of this quote the other day.  He said something like "there are more guns in the US than people".  When he said it, my thoughts were that I wouldn't be that surprised of that was the case, but I didn't think so.

It's probably difficult to determine with even ok accuracy how many guns are in circulation in the US, but it seems like data appears to indicate that there are more guns in the US than people. 
 For every gun that I have, I probably know at least 5 people that don't own guns.

I only own 6 guns, less than when I was only 17 years old, but that equates to 2 per person in my household.  My brother owns about 20 or 10 per person in his household.  My other brother owns 5, with only him.  A friend of mine has 70 with 1 in his household.  I know a lot of the guys here probably have at least a 5 to 1 ratio in their home.  I believe there are more guns than people in the US.

I was in the IKEA store in Vegas this morning and I saw an old guy walking around the store open carrying a Glock.  Nobody even seemed concerned or looked twice.  I love Nevada.

Thank you very much for clearing that up!  Now I know   

Let me be clear then when I give you an award for intelligence I will be doing so sarcastically since you have trouble telling.

Let me be clear then when I give you an award for intelligence I will be doing so sarcastically since you have trouble telling.

As Forrest might say:

"I'm not a smart man, but I can tell an argumentative liar when I see one."

Slinging insults from behind a keyboard is easy.  But you should try to be more creative!          

I only own 6 guns, less than when I was only 17 years old, but that equates to 2 per person in my household.  My brother owns about 20 or 10 per person in his household.  My other brother owns 5, with only him.  A friend of mine has 70 with 1 in his household.  I know a lot of the guys here probably have at least a 5 to 1 ratio in their home.  I believe there are more guns than people in the US.

I was in the IKEA store in Vegas this morning and I saw an old guy walking around the store open carrying a Glock.  Nobody even seemed concerned or looked twice.  I love Nevada.

i don't own any firearms...

i don't own any firearms...

Wise man, I decided to do the same after the media made me see how dangerous they are.

i don't own any firearms...

If Nerf Guns count you own a bunch!!! 

i don't own any firearms...

Wise man, I decided to do the same after the media made me see how dangerous they are.

Boating accidents? 

Many former gun owners have mentioned losing their guns in bottom of rivers and lake in boating accidents.  They really ought to be more careful on those boats.   

 

If Nerf Guns count you own a bunch!!! 

Two of my buddies' kids have tons of Nerf guns.  Way more than I own.  Lots of ammo too, but they seem to have limited reloading capabilities.

As Forrest might say:

"I'm not a smart man, but I can tell an argumentative liar when I see one."

Slinging insults from behind a keyboard is easy.  But you should try to be more creative!          

You draw first blood and are going to complain my comebacks aren't witty enough for you?

And we would still be on topic if someone didn't decide to start a flame war.

You draw first blood and are going to complain my comebacks aren't witty enough for you?

And we would still be on topic if someone didn't decide to start a flame war.

By first blood, if you mean I corrected your statement  that the subject quote had to do with the mainland US, then I guess I did do that!

I didn't think you were going to react so emotional and irrationally when something you posted was disputed.  Seems to me, you've had that done so often you should be used to it by now!

By first blood, if you mean I corrected your statement  that the subject quote had to do with the mainland US, then I guess I did do that!

I didn't think you were going to react so emotional and irrationally when something you posted was disputed.  Seems to me, you've had that done so often you should be used to it by now!

My point was to illustrate a logical flaw behind the quote . Rather than address the logical flaw I was talking about out you focused on semantics.

You were the first to level insults, I remained calm. You kept at it then when I bit back you try to flip the tables and suggest I am emotional and over reacting?

If you wanted to discuss what the Japanese might have meant by "mainland united states" we certainly could have done that cordially.

My point was to illustrate a logical flaw behind the quote . Rather than address the logical flaw I was talking about out you focused on semantics.

You were the first to level insults, I remained calm. You kept at it then when I bit back you try to flip the tables and suggest I am emotional and over reacting?

If you wanted to discuss what the Japanese might have meant by "mainland united states" we certainly could have done that cordially.

My point was to illustrate a logical flaw behind the quote . Rather than address the logical flaw I was talking about out you focused on semantics.

You were the first to level insults, I remained calm. You kept at it then when I bit back you try to flip the tables and suggest I am emotional and over reacting?

If you wanted to discuss what the Japanese might have meant by "mainland united states" we certainly could have done that cordially.

The only flaw was in your basic thought process and general 3rd grade knowledge of the US.  The US didn't include Alaska (or Hawaii) as a state until 1959.  If you want to argue logic, let's discuss how you didn't know that little factoid.  If you had, the whole definition of mainland would have never been a problem for you.

Let's stay focused. The reason is, many other people are reading these gun-related threads, and many of them probably do not even log in, or are just visiting once.

Many of those people could also be liberals, who are looking to see whether or not these gun owners are as nutty as the TV tells them.

Sometimes, posts can veer off into all kinds of directions, whether intentional or not, providing ammo for propagandists.

Anyway, back to the topic:

Eatingeyefish said: "Japan did do a ground invasion of the USA, thus the logic behind the alleged quote obviously did not serve as a deterrent."

We can only theorize what the logic is, but it is not unreasonable to think that a sustained invasion campaign would be close to impossible, even if you started a beach-head, because the contiguous and connected states have a large population of armed citizens dwarfing any landed enemy force.

Now, no military commander is going to land his troops just to have some bullet fun at the beach. It must be the start of a sustainable invasion campaign.

When the entire native population is armed, it is very unlikely said beach-head could even hold, much less support subsequent plans.

So while this topic was to ascertain whether or not the quote is authentic, there is nonetheless good reasoning behind it.

Certainly, an armed population of citizens is significantly harder to conquer than a disarmed population.

There should be no doubt about that point.

Certainly, an armed population of citizens is significantly harder to conquer than a disarmed population.

hmmm, perhaps the gun grabbers know this?...

Most of them probably don't. Useful though.

The only flaw was in your basic thought process and general 3rd grade knowledge of the US.  The US didn't include Alaska (or Hawaii) as a state until 1959.  If you want to argue logic, let's discuss how you didn't know that little factoid.  If you had, the whole definition of mainland would have never been a problem for you.

Alaska was still a US territory. Do you think they reasoned that just because Alaska hadn't entered into statehood that the residents there didn't have guns? Someone at a table said "good thing they are just a territory and not a state, that way we wont face a gun behind every blade of grass" ?

You are focusing on the wording of the quote and you are right on that technicality, but the logic behind the quote, that there are a lot of guns in the USA making a land invasion difficult, is not contingent on whether a location is classified as a state or territory, or whether it is the mainland or the continental USA or the contiguous states, etc. Wouldn't Alaskans be just as well armed as citizens in the lower 48?

I suspect private gun ownership would not be at the top of the list of problems Japan would have trying to invade the USA. Private gun ownership would certainly be a concern for them but I think logistics would be the biggest issue. Transporting enough soldiers almost 5,000 miles away from the homeland and keeping them stocked for a lengthy ground war would be the 800lb gorilla in the room.

Any country with significant private gun ownership serves as a deterrent to a land invasion, that we can all agree on I think. I just don't think that ended up as much of an issue in the case of the Japanese.

From what I understand* the concept was brought up by one of Yamamoto's aides in a planning session and Yamamoto sort of took it and ran with it.  Just from memory, and I don't feel like digging it up by chapter and page.

Terry

* Not sure where I got this from.  Perhaps Jablonski's "Airwar" series, or "Total War" by Calvoressi and Wint.  In either case, it was presented by known and accredited WWII historians.

Contiguous states implies people can more easily cross land to reinforce the front line.

Contiguous states implies people can more easily cross land to reinforce the front line.

Very true, but this is a concern whether the populace is armed with firearms or not. We knew that if we invaded Japan there were plans to have civilians with any and every improvised weapon available attack american troops. But in hindsight, all this logic and tactics really doesn't prove or disprove the accuracy of the quote.

Very true, but this is a concern whether the populace is armed with firearms or not. We knew that if we invaded Japan there were plans to have civilians with any and every improvised weapon available attack american troops. But in hindsight, all this logic and tactics really doesn't prove or disprove the accuracy of the quote.

Yes, the villagers can attack the invading force with pitchforks, scythes, wooden bats, and rocks.

Or with things that shoot .308, .45, BMG...