3 ms·

Well back in 1993, almost 49% of households had a gun. Today the number is 32%. That alone is a 35% drop in gun ownership. There are so many other factors th

Well back in 1993, almost 49% of households had a gun. Today the number is 32%. That alone is a 35% drop in gun ownership. There are so many other factors that could play a role here. And none of them negate the need for common sense gun regulations and re-funding research on both gun and non-gun violence.

learc83 13y ago
Household says nothing about the number of guns or the gun availability. Your granddad's rusty shotgun sitting your closet counts as the entire household "owning" a gun. The average household size is smaller today than it was in 1993, meaning that it's possible that more individuals actually own guns.
hga 13y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5675330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5675330; you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number. That's somewhere around the middle of the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now totalling 42 states and 2/3rds of the population. Such an astounding political development---there were 2-3 states when Florida opened the floodgates in 1987---wouldn't seem to correlate with lower ownership rates. As for this so called research, would you be talking about the output of people like Dr. Mark Rosenberg, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC in 1994 when he said objective was to make people see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” Any wonder the NRA and gun owners in general were able to get the Congress to ban such "research"? And aren't you a bit disturbed by the violations of the rule of law of Obama ignoring these laws?
- edtechdev 13y ago
  "you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number" Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted, or didn't think about it before responding, because that doesn't say anything against the evidence that there is lower gun ownership today than there was 20 years ago, only that the actual percentage back then AND now is likely higher than surveys suggest, but there is still a strong trend downward in gun ownership. And for this "so called research", I'm talking about the NIH and CDC research into gun violence that was cut off under pressure by the NRA in 1996: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as... Research for example that showed that owning a gun increases the likelihood of harm done to or by a family member or acquaintance.
  - hga 13y ago
    Heh, your own descriptions of the research impeach it. "Acquaintance" of course includes e.g. drug dealers killing each other. They are generally "acquaintances" if not exactly friends, or friends any more; in general, stranger murders are relatively rare. And your citation first mentions Arthur Kellerman, who's infamous for scoring undesired civilian deaths vs. civilians killing criminals, when such killing cannot legally be and is not the objective, stopping them is. There are many other problems with his "research", but when it's invalid at that high a level we hardly need to go into the details.
    - edtechdev 13y ago
      You didn't even bother to read the article, it says "family member or intimate acquaintance." If you're intimate with "drug dealers killing each other" then I stand corrected.

learc83 13y ago

Household says nothing about the number of guns or the gun availability. Your granddad's rusty shotgun sitting your closet counts as the entire household "owning" a gun. The average household size is smaller today than it was in 1993, meaning that it's possible that more individuals actually own guns.

hga 13y ago

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5675330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5675330; you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number. That's somewhere around the middle of the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now totalling 42 states and 2/3rds of the population. Such an astounding political development---there were 2-3 states when Florida opened the floodgates in 1987---wouldn't seem to correlate with lower ownership rates. As for this so called research, would you be talking about the output of people like Dr. Mark Rosenberg, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC in 1994 when he said objective was to make people see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” Any wonder the NRA and gun owners in general were able to get the Congress to ban such "research"? And aren't you a bit disturbed by the violations of the rule of law of Obama ignoring these laws?

edtechdev 13y ago
"you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number" Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted, or didn't think about it before responding, because that doesn't say anything against the evidence that there is lower gun ownership today than there was 20 years ago, only that the actual percentage back then AND now is likely higher than surveys suggest, but there is still a strong trend downward in gun ownership. And for this "so called research", I'm talking about the NIH and CDC research into gun violence that was cut off under pressure by the NRA in 1996: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as... Research for example that showed that owning a gun increases the likelihood of harm done to or by a family member or acquaintance.
- hga 13y ago
  Heh, your own descriptions of the research impeach it. "Acquaintance" of course includes e.g. drug dealers killing each other. They are generally "acquaintances" if not exactly friends, or friends any more; in general, stranger murders are relatively rare. And your citation first mentions Arthur Kellerman, who's infamous for scoring undesired civilian deaths vs. civilians killing criminals, when such killing cannot legally be and is not the objective, stopping them is. There are many other problems with his "research", but when it's invalid at that high a level we hardly need to go into the details.
  - edtechdev 13y ago
    You didn't even bother to read the article, it says "family member or intimate acquaintance." If you're intimate with "drug dealers killing each other" then I stand corrected.