4 ms·
Just to clarify because my link 0 "guns per capita" was a bit misleading. It's actually per 1,000 people, not 1. Link to more original source [0]. Quick maths:
by deathlocke 7y ago
Just to clarify because my link 0 "guns per capita" was a bit misleading. It's actually per 1,000 people, not 1. Link to more original source [0].
Quick maths: 21 guns p/capita divided by 1,000 people = 0.021 * 28 million (pop of Texas) = ~588,000 guns.
Your observation about Texas is very interesting, and I don't have an answer for that. Texas might have, historically, a better gun culture? In any case, having half the mass shootings as another state is still a number greater than zero, which remains the ultimate goal.
[0] - https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/#_ftn1%20 https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/#_ftn1%20
- DuskStar 7y ago> Just to clarify because my link 0 "guns per capita" was a bit misleading. It's actually per 1,000 people, not 1. Link to more original source [0]. Ahhh, registered guns per 1000 people. That makes a bit more sense, but is still probably not all that useful, as the vast majority of guns in the US are unregistered. AFAICT this is just counting NFA-registered weapons, such as fully automatic guns, destructive devices, short-barreled rifles, suppressors, etc. > In any case, having half the mass shootings as another state is still a number greater than zero, which remains the ultimate goal. Ah, but it does provide a hint that the number of guns might not be the primary determining factor. > Texas might have, historically, a better gun culture? My guess would also involve "Texas's gun culture hasn't been killed off by state laws", as in California.