5 ms·

It doesn't matter if 40% of new sales went to new gun owners or 4%. If people who were not gun owners are buying guns, then the % of people who owns guns is inc

It doesn't matter if 40% of new sales went to new gun owners or 4%. If people who were not gun owners are buying guns, then the % of people who owns guns is increased. >The long term trend in gun ownership (both individually and by households) has been down for a long time (different data sources have different exact numbers, but the trend is consistent across them.) Or, the number of people willing to admit owning a gun has been on the decline in a gun-hostile climate.

extra88 6y ago
No, because the data can’t address how many gun owners gave up their guns (willingly or not) in the time period. Or how many gun owners died for that matter. If first-time buyers made up 40% of sales, a net increase in gun ownership is likely. If it’s much lower, maybe not.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If people who were not gun owners are buying guns, then the % of people who owns guns is increased. That's not true. Because people who own guns can stop being gun owners, too, both through giving up gun ownership—volintarily or not—and death. There's always some share of gun purchases that go to new gun owners, but the trend in gun ownership for at least 50 years has been: 1. Smaller number of households with guns. 2. Smaller number of individual adults with guns (though not by as much as #1, as the average number of adult gun owners per gun owning household has gone up.) 3. Larger number of guns per gun owning household. 4. Larger number of guns per gun owner (though not by as much as #3, for pretty similar reasons as the relationship between #2 and #1.) Gun ownership is becoming a narrower subculture, and within families within that subculture gun ownership is becoming more universal, and to involve more guns per owner. Guns have become the “bling” of a shrinking subculture.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Gun ownership is becoming a narrower subculture, and within families within that subculture gun ownership is becoming more universal. Completely false: ‘There are 5 million new gun owners, and many are minorities, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The group said that its surveys of gun stores found that 58% of the firearm purchases were by black men and women, “the largest increase of any demographic group.” What’s more, said the group, “women comprised 40% of first-time gun purchasers.”’ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/boom-five-million-new-gun-owners-58-black-40-women https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/boom-f...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Even if there were 5 million net new gun owners (which your source doesn't even begin to indicate), that would be less than +2% of the adult population, which would be within the year-to-year noise in any of the data series on gun ownership. It wouldn't cast even the slightest bit of doubt on the long term trend, which is clear in every long term data series on the issue. And, of course, 5 million first time gun buyers aren't the same as 5 million new gun owners, much less 5 million net new gun owners, (that is, after accounting for gun owners who died or—voluntarily or not—stopped owning guns; and the died part is more significant than you might think, as gun ownership is significantly lower in the sub-50 age cohorts than the 50-64 and 65+ cohorts; just by naive estimation considering only age, deaths in the 50+ cohort alone would reduce the count of gun owners by something like 1.3 million, and in all age categories by about 1.4 million)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - zepto 6y ago
      > just by naive estimation This isn’t a serious critique. It’s some guesswork and assumptions on your part. If someone has done a real analysis that produces results similar to yours, it would be helpful for you to link to it.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > This isn’t a serious critique. Thar counting new buyers isn't the same as counting net change in gun owners is a serious critique. That people, including gun owners, do in fact die is a major part of that. I'm quite up front that I wasn't proposing that the calculation was more than a very simplistic estimate of the number that assumes gun owners don't have substantially different mortality risk than other people of the same age, but the number wasn’t the important part of the critique, the fact that the argument about increase in gun owners completely ignores all sources of reduction—deaths, people voluntarily stopping being gun owners, people involuntarily stopping being gun owners was the critique. Also the fact that even if the 5 million was net new gun owners, it wouldn't actually mean much in the overall trend.

extra88 6y ago

No, because the data can’t address how many gun owners gave up their guns (willingly or not) in the time period. Or how many gun owners died for that matter. If first-time buyers made up 40% of sales, a net increase in gun ownership is likely. If it’s much lower, maybe not.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> If people who were not gun owners are buying guns, then the % of people who owns guns is increased. That's not true. Because people who own guns can stop being gun owners, too, both through giving up gun ownership—volintarily or not—and death. There's always some share of gun purchases that go to new gun owners, but the trend in gun ownership for at least 50 years has been: 1. Smaller number of households with guns. 2. Smaller number of individual adults with guns (though not by as much as #1, as the average number of adult gun owners per gun owning household has gone up.) 3. Larger number of guns per gun owning household. 4. Larger number of guns per gun owner (though not by as much as #3, for pretty similar reasons as the relationship between #2 and #1.) Gun ownership is becoming a narrower subculture, and within families within that subculture gun ownership is becoming more universal, and to involve more guns per owner. Guns have become the “bling” of a shrinking subculture.

zepto 6y ago
> Gun ownership is becoming a narrower subculture, and within families within that subculture gun ownership is becoming more universal. Completely false: ‘There are 5 million new gun owners, and many are minorities, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The group said that its surveys of gun stores found that 58% of the firearm purchases were by black men and women, “the largest increase of any demographic group.” What’s more, said the group, “women comprised 40% of first-time gun purchasers.”’ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/boom-five-million-new-gun-owners-58-black-40-women https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/boom-f...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Even if there were 5 million net new gun owners (which your source doesn't even begin to indicate), that would be less than +2% of the adult population, which would be within the year-to-year noise in any of the data series on gun ownership. It wouldn't cast even the slightest bit of doubt on the long term trend, which is clear in every long term data series on the issue. And, of course, 5 million first time gun buyers aren't the same as 5 million new gun owners, much less 5 million net new gun owners, (that is, after accounting for gun owners who died or—voluntarily or not—stopped owning guns; and the died part is more significant than you might think, as gun ownership is significantly lower in the sub-50 age cohorts than the 50-64 and 65+ cohorts; just by naive estimation considering only age, deaths in the 50+ cohort alone would reduce the count of gun owners by something like 1.3 million, and in all age categories by about 1.4 million)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 6y ago
    > just by naive estimation This isn’t a serious critique. It’s some guesswork and assumptions on your part. If someone has done a real analysis that produces results similar to yours, it would be helpful for you to link to it.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > This isn’t a serious critique. Thar counting new buyers isn't the same as counting net change in gun owners is a serious critique. That people, including gun owners, do in fact die is a major part of that. I'm quite up front that I wasn't proposing that the calculation was more than a very simplistic estimate of the number that assumes gun owners don't have substantially different mortality risk than other people of the same age, but the number wasn’t the important part of the critique, the fact that the argument about increase in gun owners completely ignores all sources of reduction—deaths, people voluntarily stopping being gun owners, people involuntarily stopping being gun owners was the critique. Also the fact that even if the 5 million was net new gun owners, it wouldn't actually mean much in the overall trend.