3 ms·

Surely the more relevant metric is the percentage of households with at least one gun? Guns are durable goods that people don’t dispose of, so of course they ac

Surely the more relevant metric is the percentage of households with at least one gun? Guns are durable goods that people don’t dispose of, so of course they accumulate. My father in law has boats, old cars, and guns piling up around his house. But school shootings typically aren’t committed by people rummaging through their grandparents’ basements, right? Similarly, it surely is better to compare the same country over time instead of comparing different countries which differ in many additional respects? If your thesis that the availability of guns causes school shootings is true, you should expect to see school shootings going down in the U.S. as the practical availability of a gun goes down.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Surely the more relevant metric is the percentage of households with at least one gun? Why? > Similarly, it surely is better to compare the same country over time instead of comparing different countries which differ in many additional respects? Mass shootings are a distinctly American phenomenon. (One happened today. It probably won't make any front pages [1].) It absolutely makes sense to ask what we're doing wrong relative to other countries. > If your thesis that the availability of guns causes school shootings is true, you should expect to see school shootings going down in the U.S. as the practical availability of a gun goes down One would expect to see more school shootings in states with "more permissive firearm laws and higher rates of gun ownership" [2]. One does. I also challenge the notion that fewer households with more guns makes guns less available to kids. A household with one or two guns is probably keeping track of them in a way one with a new gun every Christmas is not. 82% of school shooters don't grow up in stable homes [3]. Practically all of them are from gun homes. More critically, the prevalence of two-parent households has been going up since the mid-2000s [4]. So have mass shootings. (Kirk's assassin grew up in a stable home. He used the rifle his family gifted him to do the deed [5].) [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gvgr7w2yko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gvgr7w2yko [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35449898/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35449898/ [3] https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/shooters_myth_stable_home_1.15.pdf https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/shooters_myt... [4] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-resurgence-of-the-two-parent-family https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-resurgence-of-the-two-parent-... [5] https://people.com/tyler-robinson-received-rifle-as-gift-used-assassinate-charlie-kirk-11810901 https://people.com/tyler-robinson-received-rifle-as-gift-use...
- rayiner 1y ago
  > Why? Because 0 to 1 is the big step. > A household with one or two guns is probably keeping track of them in a way one with a new gun every Christmas is not. That’s a theory, but what’s the evidence? Do you think farmers locked up their guns? Kids used to bring guns to school for sports shooting back in the day. > Mass shootings are a distinctly American phenomenon. Sure, but it’s been exceptional in terms of widespread gun ownership for longer than it’s had a major problem with mass shootings. When doctors are trying to diagnose people, the first thing they ask is: “what have you been doing different?”
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Because 0 to 1 is the big step This doesn't answer why 0 to 1 households with guns is a bigger step than 0 to 1 guns. > what’s the evidence? It's a hypothesis. The observation is monotonically more guns, monotonically fewer gun households, more school shootings, all while single-family households become more and then less prevalent. The corollary of the first two is more guns per gun-owning household. The implication of the last is it's not causative. The hypothesis is the larger number of guns in fewer households may have something to do with the mess. > it’s been exceptional in terms of widespread gun ownership for longer than it’s had a major problem with mass shootings Source? My understanding is these data weren't well tracked before WWII. > When doctors are trying to diagnose people, the first thing they ask is: “what have you been doing different?” Why wouldn't the NRA's radicalisation from a gun-safety orientation to Second Amendment extremism count?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Surely the more relevant metric is the percentage of households with at least one gun? Why? > Similarly, it surely is better to compare the same country over time instead of comparing different countries which differ in many additional respects? Mass shootings are a distinctly American phenomenon. (One happened today. It probably won't make any front pages [1].) It absolutely makes sense to ask what we're doing wrong relative to other countries. > If your thesis that the availability of guns causes school shootings is true, you should expect to see school shootings going down in the U.S. as the practical availability of a gun goes down One would expect to see more school shootings in states with "more permissive firearm laws and higher rates of gun ownership" [2]. One does. I also challenge the notion that fewer households with more guns makes guns less available to kids. A household with one or two guns is probably keeping track of them in a way one with a new gun every Christmas is not. 82% of school shooters don't grow up in stable homes [3]. Practically all of them are from gun homes. More critically, the prevalence of two-parent households has been going up since the mid-2000s [4]. So have mass shootings. (Kirk's assassin grew up in a stable home. He used the rifle his family gifted him to do the deed [5].) [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gvgr7w2yko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gvgr7w2yko [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35449898/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35449898/ [3] https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/shooters_myth_stable_home_1.15.pdf https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/shooters_myt... [4] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-resurgence-of-the-two-parent-family https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-resurgence-of-the-two-parent-... [5] https://people.com/tyler-robinson-received-rifle-as-gift-used-assassinate-charlie-kirk-11810901 https://people.com/tyler-robinson-received-rifle-as-gift-use...

rayiner 1y ago
> Why? Because 0 to 1 is the big step. > A household with one or two guns is probably keeping track of them in a way one with a new gun every Christmas is not. That’s a theory, but what’s the evidence? Do you think farmers locked up their guns? Kids used to bring guns to school for sports shooting back in the day. > Mass shootings are a distinctly American phenomenon. Sure, but it’s been exceptional in terms of widespread gun ownership for longer than it’s had a major problem with mass shootings. When doctors are trying to diagnose people, the first thing they ask is: “what have you been doing different?”
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Because 0 to 1 is the big step This doesn't answer why 0 to 1 households with guns is a bigger step than 0 to 1 guns. > what’s the evidence? It's a hypothesis. The observation is monotonically more guns, monotonically fewer gun households, more school shootings, all while single-family households become more and then less prevalent. The corollary of the first two is more guns per gun-owning household. The implication of the last is it's not causative. The hypothesis is the larger number of guns in fewer households may have something to do with the mess. > it’s been exceptional in terms of widespread gun ownership for longer than it’s had a major problem with mass shootings Source? My understanding is these data weren't well tracked before WWII. > When doctors are trying to diagnose people, the first thing they ask is: “what have you been doing different?” Why wouldn't the NRA's radicalisation from a gun-safety orientation to Second Amendment extremism count?