There are several different styles of history writing. One is to describe what happened. For example, there are histories of battles, and of Krakatoa, and of Ne

There are several different styles of history writing. One is to describe what happened. For example, there are histories of battles, and of Krakatoa, and of Newton, which follow more or less a timeline. Another is to identify underlying patterns and trends that help understand what happened, and hopefully can be applied elsewhere. For examples, how did the introduction of light mobile guns by Gustavus Adolphus change the battlefield? Why did the explosion of Krakatoa have a big cultural impact as well as physical one? How are Newton's view on alchemy and biblical research connected to his work on physics? The first is more descriptive, and the second is more predictive. Both are good history. Both are scientific, but call for different sorts of research. Both require extensive literature analysis. The latter requires more work to come up with alternative hypothesis and relevant comparisons, in order to test and disprove hypotheses. This article does both. I think it does best at the descriptive aspects of the event. But it uses a historical model that isn't well tested, but could be tested by looking towards other genocides to see if the model fits. If the model doesn't fit in a more general sense, then in the context of US gun control laws, it's a curiosity at best, and not something that can be used in decision making. It is trying to making that comparison, and not limit itself to the uprising, which is why I regard it as a bad piece of historical writing.