U.S. States with the Least Gun Ownership

Newport's about the only thing on Rhode Island itself.

Did you have to loop this into you accusing democrats of being far-left?

I have no friends that own guns, and I no one who has been criminally attacked. If a friend of mine had a gun, I would respect it if they had a reason. I would not respect it if they hid it so little that a criminal stole it and shot someone. A knife is enough protection for anyone. If you need a gun for hunting, and hunting is your main job, that's completely fine. But you shouldn't have a gun without reason.

Sorry if I was confusing, I mean that I have no friends that I know own a gun, but this data would show that maybe a quarter of the people in my city have one.

This is the most pathetic thread I've ever read in the comment section. Weak defense and often unintelligible sentences. Gun ownership in the USA for self defense is not only our right but reasonable. Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the law. A well trained gun owner interested in self defense will be prepared to protect his family if a horrible situation ever presents itself.

If a horrible situation ever presents itself the nature of it is more likely to be an accident involving the gun than a situation where a gun will make anything any better.

I am no fan of guns and I don't own one myself, but many of the arguments being advanced here are illogical and intentionally miss the point. Gun ownership for self-defense is reasonable enough. Owning a gun for self-defense doesn't mean you intend to use it any more than owning a fire extinguisher means you intend to it. It's something you keep in case a particular emergency arises. I personally don't think the costs of gun ownership outweigh the benefits (nor do they come anywhere close), but I think a larger problem is the refusal for either side to have a common-sense discussion: how do we weigh the rational desire, generally supported by the Second Amendment, to have a weapon in the home for self-defense against the lethal threat of guns, the endless current of gun violence and mass shootings, and the cultish and myopic hysteria of gun worship in some parts of this country? That, to me, is a question genuinely worth exploring.

@Olober excuse for what? hunting and self defense? who said that wasn't allowed? terrible example

I'm a little afraid of you

How would the robber know who had a gun before mugging them?

It'd be the person that wasn't pointing a gun back at you.

And with all those protections in place, I assume there are not too many gun deaths in America?

Thank you. Finally someone understands me.

Pro-Gun people are just now using the 2nd amendment as an excuse. For proof, check about what Lauren Boebert is rambling about right now.

excuse for what. owning guns?

No, it's to protect us from the government. Because when the tyrants come with their space-age chemical weaponry and state-of-the-art body armor, they will cower at the sight of my rifle. And don't forget that the troops and the police -- before whom we must bow in reverence every ten minutes -- are the government's military and enforcement arms, so they'd probably, heroically, be fine with turning on their own people so the government could enslave us. Or maybe it will just be Eric Holder with a solar-powered bazooka? It's all very confusing.

"It’s everyone’s duty to support the troops, and also to support the Second Amendment should the day come when we need to overthrow the government and kill those troops." https://voices.clickhole.com/it-s-our-duty-to-support-the-troops-and-the-second-amen-1825124050

statistically on a per-encounter basis the people Puzzled would label as "white" are more likely to get shot than those he would label as "black." But anyway, yes, owning a gun will much more likely get you shot than prevent it. It's not going to protect you from predator drones, either. Unless your militia has an aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine the government is not scared of you at all. Like I said, this amendment is obsolete, regardless of how you (mis)interpret it.

hikiko: no, they're not. The Constitution was designed to be amended. Sometimes amendments get repealed. But I think you got your nonsensical talking point mixed up. The line you are supposed to parrot is: "the 2nd amendment is the one that makes all the others possible"- the staggeringly wrong but oft-repeated line from the gun manufacturer's lobby implies that somehow if we weren't all armed the government would seize upon this to start acting tyrannically and taking away our freedoms. Again, the US government is not afraid of your cute little collection of BB guns. They've got stealth bombers. Further, the current president and his allies are behaving like any tyrannical despot out in plain sight, and most of the people in the country with guns are cheering him on, so, you're not exactly acting as an effective deterrent. If one of you 2nd amendment guys goes to Washington and does some watering of Jefferson's tree of liberty, I'll take this back. But I don't see that happening.

What do you think hikikomori? Did the founding fathers really think that nothing would change?

there is a lot more hate going around right now than when the founding fathers were around. maybe we should get rid of the 1st amendment eh? domestic terrorism and the like is much more prevalent as well, so maybe the 4th is obsolete as well. gonna need some unreasonable searches and seizures to take care of all the illegal guns once we abolish the 2nd