This is true. There are a lot of guns, but a good chunk of gun owners own more than one firearm so the “average” is skewed. Look at the ones that have massive collections or the preppers for instance. Some owner collections have dozens or even hundreds of firearms.

There’s also the clear assumption the OP photo makes that all of those owners are conservative and willing to fight for Texas. I have quite a few friends with firearms, on both sides of the aisle. In fact, most of the gun owners I know personally are Democrats. None of them would ever do anything to help Texas.

You are basically spot on.

I am a gun owner with more than 5 guns locked away in my basement safe. One of those “these people need protection when escorted to the health clinic because the right wing nut jobs are trying to block access and the pigs won’t do anything about it because some of them joined” kind of people, who will happily use every ounce of legal force I can bear to ensure they aren’t stopped by mouth breathers who don’t understand that they don’t have any rights over a woman’s body.

Of the people I know well enough to know their gun owning status, I’d say less than half own guns. But the half that do almost all own more than one. Mostly in .22LR (small caliber) for “plinking” (shooting small objects/targets for fun at a range or range-like area of your property) but most of the ones that aren’t are for hunting. Maybe 5 or 6 people have an ar-15, and the ones I’ve seen are set up for medium range target shooting.

Now I am certainly biased in who I know, because I do not willingly associate with “peppers” (it’s always guns and cans of beans in a basement, never anything else) or right wing assholes. None of the people I associate with would even strike you as gun owners, because they don’t look the part, don’t drive lifted pickups, don’t wear oakleys/aviators backwards with a punisher skill thin blue line shirt and camo cargo shorts on. (generalization but you know the type)

They’re very much the “those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable” kind of people.

Now from my younger years, being hauled in to church every week, I’d say it still holds true for that area at that time, under 50% but they own multiples.

So it’s less “everyone owns tons of guns” and more “the under half that own guns own more than 2” I guess.

42% of households have at least 1 gun. Actually looked this up recently.

Yep, it’s much more common than other countries, but gun owners are still in the minority of people, and of the gun owners, many of them only own a pistol (for self defense) or a hunting rifle for hunting, with owning just one pistol being by far the most common.

And like you said, some Americans own a LOT of guns. Those people tend to view guns as something to collect, or as a status symbol, some even have dozens of different guns they never even use or maintain, but just hoard. They tend to skew the average number to be higher.

I mean, some Americans have RPGs and historical cannons and swords and bows instead of guns

Yup, Pew Research says that only 32% of Americans own a gun.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/#:~:text=About a third of adults,else in their household does.

(Also not American) The numbers in this tweet, if correct, would imply that ~80% of Americans don’t own a firearm. If memory serves there’s a slightly over 1:1 ratio between registered firearms and American citizens so that would suggest an average of 5 guns per owner.

I left guns behind along with my childhood.

Depends on the area.
Rural means guns to deal with vermin or wildlife.
Urban poor means illegal guns in bulk.
Urban middle-class, if there still is one, means self-defense as desired.
Urban high class means private security, personal gun optional.

Then you have your gangs, cartels, cults, communes, independent secessionists, hobby hunters, gun lovers and political party zealots - in no particular order or affiliation.

Mix in some mass media fear mongering and everyone is suddenly armed to the teeth, willingly or not.

So to answer your question, I have no idea.

Socialist gun owner checking in. Nice to meet you, stupid sexy Flanders.

If Texas secedes from the Union, the Republicans will never win another presidential election.

They’re in need of some mechanical bootstraps I see.

deleted by creator

The other 95% of us gun owners, such as myself, who DON’T broadcast it to the world and make it our entire personality, have guns as a hobby or as tools to use on the farm. And give zero fucks about whatever the hell the feds or Texas is up to…

“What will your response be to an AGM-114 Hellfire missile?”

“Well I’ll shoot it of course.”

Gun owner here: that’s a stupid mentality. Putting aside the fact that I rather like the federal government, the best you could hope for in a war against the feds is an indefinite insurgency. You’ll suffer an abismal casualty rate, and you’ll really only be able to “win” if you saturate the government with sympathizers. If that happens, well, “you” won’t be doing the winning, it’ll be the people who got themselves into established positions of power.

As a gun owner, guns are for hunting and defending against these drooling idiot, neo-nazi seditionists who are trying to forment civil war.

Here’s your answer.

All the bombs, missiles, planes, and tanks are how the US got a decisive victory in Vietnam.

I always bring up resources management. They probably won’t go full hog in an armed uprising on US soil. Every bridge bombed is a bridge needed to rebuild. A carpet bombing of Texas will hit non-combatant citizens. A preemptive point against this would be the first civil war. Sherman’s march ( the goat ) was different because the largest militaries decided to be neutral during the conflict. A crippling of an armed uprising will also cripple defense against China or Russia if they get froggy. Or if the damages could be justified. Like say a critical bridge was one of the MANY bridges that are on the verge of collapsing. Bomb it now and make Texas pay for it call it Biden’s bridge etc. Or a track of land being used by rebels is prime railroad land/oil/etc.

Crazy. Almost like it’s just hollow self-aggrandizing so they can pretend they’re a hero.

Every gun owner on the internet seems to be 100% on board with using their guns to install a fascist US government.

“Everything’s bigger in texas” including the fear of gubmint

Sign me up for the pro gun anti sedition group.

That’s the appeal of conservativism. If you are a member of the in group, you are good, and anyone who isn’t in the group is bad. That’s all the justification a conservative needs to say or do anything that benefits the conservatives in the group.

It’s not a contradiction at all. When it serves them to argue you need thirty 5.56 rounds, a silencer, and a bump stock to hunt quail or whatever, then that’s the argument they make. When it is best to argue that their assault-themed hunting rifles will help them overthrow the government, that’s the argument.

When it helps them to push moral wedge issues to lather up their small minded constituents, they will promote their credentials as the last bastion of moral authority in a world filled with demons. When one of those demons rises to be the leader of their party, they fall in line and claim he’s the fucking messiah.

Those arguments aren’t contradictory or hypocritical, because when they make them, they are benefitting themselves. Previous statements or positions are like farts in the wind. When they criticized government handouts, it was correct because the criticism helped them get elected, and spending less on social programs let them spend more on benefitting themselves. When they accepted government handouts, it was correct because it benefited themselves.

See how easy this is? Rational people are often confused, and assume there must be some Olympic level mental gymnastics going on inside of the mind of a conservative. It’s not that complicated, and there isn’t hardly anything going on. That’s the appeal. You don’t have to think, you don’t have to remember, and you owe nobody an explanation. You are right because of who you are and therefore anything you want to do or say is righteous. Just don’t go against the in-group.

You’re right, they have the same outer shell with a completely different firing mechanism. The best anyone can legally get (to my knowledge) is a binary trigger. It fires when pulled, fires when released.

I always took it as the distinction between a moped and a motorcycle. Different even if a lot of the functionality is close.

Assault rifle refers to the calibre and application of a rifle.

The smaller 5.56 round is an assault rifle round, this is to distinguish it from the previous larger battle rifle rounds.

The AR-15 was designed with select fire. The ones sold to civilians don’t have this capability because it’s illegal.

The only people that define these in such a way as you have a gun nuts. Trying to hide the fact that people are selling and marketing a weapon of war to civilians in a peaceful country.

You dismiss it as just semantics.

Semantics matter, especially in politics.

Assault rifles, by definition, have select fire capabilities. Commercially available civilian AR-15 is semi-auto single fire only. People are often confused by the AR designation, but that stands for Armalite, the original manufacturer of the rifles. They are officially called “assault-style” rifles, although that term isn’t very popular because it seems like a minor quibble. In all other measures (shorter rifle, intermediate cartridge, detachable box magazine, range of 300 meters) the AR-15 meets the criteria to be called an “assault rifle,” except for the select-fire.

It’s worth mentioning that many popular models can be easily modified by a competent gunsmith to add burst and/or full auto firing. It’s illegal, but that doesn’t stop a terrorist who thinks they are going to need their rifle to join the insurrection. At that point it would be an assault rifle.

Internet comments are crazy. AR15s are semi auto. The first 3 definitions I found would not include an AR15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle - this second definition includes semi auto rifles however

The AR-15 defined assault rifles in a way. Outside of experimental weapons. Most countries that use assault rifles are based on the AR-15, the cheaper to licence AR-18 or the Soviet response to the American AR-15/M16.

Sick burn, bro.

The Texas Gravy Seals are going to have to leave their bunkers for burgers and beer eventually…and insulin.

Good thing the most well funded military in the world, greater than the next 9 nations combined, is also at their beck and call. This isn’t the NVA, this is a bunch of 280 pound guys who practice shooting from benches, going against drones, artillery, bombers, tanks, missiles, etc.

One of the fattest countries in the world aren’t hardened fighters after years of various occupations. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. is not comparable to the US and Texas