3 ms·

> 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

> 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?