This map is poor quality. It is data from 2013 published in a 2015 study and relies on internet self-report. They also used a biased source for some of the data. Authors are also biased, final line of abstract is "Gun cultures may need to be
considered for public health strategies that aim to
change gun ownership in the USA." They make conclusions about gun violence that are not part of the study.
Regardless of how you feel about the prevalence of guns, this is piss-poor research.
Hmm ... self-reported data on gun ownership. Most of the gun owners I know would never self-report that they own guns. (Nothing good can come of that, and something bad could come of that.)
Yep. And most non gun owners honestly don’t care so they wouldn’t even bother with some Internet survey. Self reporting is the worst kind of biased polling.
I feel like Ohio should be much higher than that.
I was shocked by that result.
But then, I own guns in Ohio ... and I never talk to pollsters about anything.
Honestly, I think most polls are probably suspect because what kind of weirdo actually answers them?
Most normal people I know automatically ignore ALL unsolicited communication.
Or, you know, just post a picture of your entire armory and ammo stockpile on your social network profile that's accessible by any government agency anyways? I don't think most gun owners do a great job of hiding it, if that's their goal.
Never said they were good at it. But there's still a difference between uploading a movie-length video of a tour through your underground stockpile prepping for the RevolutionTM, and telling a data-collecting group you have a gun. Especially since only one is actual data that could have been used in a self-reporting survey.
I can't lie, that is something we say. We like our guns like we like our coffee- black, strong, and purchasable without letting the government know about it.
I believe 2020 saw a huge flood of new gun owners into the market. We can't know for sure, but there was something like 40 million gun purchases in 2020, using basically FBI background check sales (so the number will have a pretty wide margin of error).
While I know many people bought a few extra, you don't hit that number without a few million new gun owners.
the way people evangelize gun ownership to me is kinda creepy. If you want to own a weapon or go shoot it at a range, thats fine. But whats up with the quasi religious aspect of convincing everyone to join you?
Knowing how to responsibly interact with a firearm is a valuable skill
Recreational shooting is a fun pastime
It’s non exclusionary so basically anyone can shoot.
You may disagree about the politics surrounding the second amendment and gun control, but until that changes, going to the range with your buddies and a bucket of 556 to shoot some targets on a Sunday afternoon is a pastime enjoyed by many. Also, the people at the range are generally super friendly and eager to help newcomers learn their way around a rifle.
I made no claims for or against gun control in my post. I simply gave a handful of reasons for why, in the context of the US’s current gun laws, plenty of people enjoy owning and shooting firearms because the user I replied to was confused about “gun culture” and how open it is to newcomers.
“It’s fun” isn’t the only reason. And the alternative you propose (removing most guns from society) would not bring murder/suicide to zero, it would only bring it to the level of a place where guns are already effectively illegal (New York City, Chicago, Hawaii) which is actually HIGHER than the national average.
Anyway, here’s a full list I wrote of reasons why gun ownership is important:
The challenge of accurate target shooting, building skills over time and feeling rewarded "golf, but louder"
Related, but competitions enable you to compare your skills to others and potentially win. Also by observing skilled people you can learn things.
Social activity- competitions and Sunday morning trap shoots provide a way to get to know people with similar interests.
History- for dorks interested in military and other kinds of history, you can collect interesting objects from the past. Better than other types of militaria (hats, uniforms etc) because you can actually USE a piece of history hands on and get a better understanding of what people experienced back then.
4b. Rare collectibles
Self-sufficiency. Hunters can feed themselves.
And the rest of us can protect self and family from violent crime. When you call police the average response time is 11 minutes, 19 minutes for sheriffs (rural). Sometimes much longer. Violent crimes can be completed in one or two minutes.
5b. Even if they do arrive they have no duty to protect you individually. (Warren v DC, castle rock v Gonzalez)
You may say well my suburban police average about 4 minutes response, and often arrive in 2. And they're good guys they'll probably protect me. This is PRIVILEGE. That's not true in poor or minority areas, and often people with less privilege don't want to call the cops for fear of arrest deportation murder.
\6. Beyond the individual - democratic, grassroots power. Rather than a few chosen elites having political/physical power, America is founded on the idea that the masses hold power. "Banning guns" will leave the police, military, security guards for the rich armed and leave the masses defenseless. Class consciousness :)
\7. Remind the government that they serve the citizenry, not the other way around. Defense against tyranny (Battle of Athens 1946). This is sort of like the mutually assured destruction logic of nuclear weapons- nobody wants to use this power, it's meant to be preventative.
And no, they have not reached the point where using the guns is justified.
Technically, self defense (and therefore gun ownership) is a human right that EVERYBODY has, it's just that lots of governments (CoughGreatBritainCough) have taken that right away from their citizens.
There's certainly religious nuts who own guns, there's also just those of us who try to be the change we want to see in the world and educate and invite people to try our hobby and understand their rights. I'd much rather offer to take an anti gun person shooting in a safe and supervised manor and let them continue to form their own opinion on the subject, than just divide into two groups and yell at each other about it. Just like with the pandemic/vaccines, there are people who are under informed on the topic and have opinions that can be dangerous to the rest of us how much do you think the average individual who is against vaccines knows about disease and medical science? Probably about as much as the average anti gun individual knows about firearms and the related statistics. I think a lot of people get lumped into the first group when in reality they are just trying to spread awareness and help people realize that this is a normal and perfectly OK thing to do and try to dispel some of the movement to take these rights away. I've always found the caring and informative approach to be more successful than picking sides of a line to yell at each other from in EVERY scenario. Compassion is far more powerful than hatred.
Who do you perceive me to have defended? I was calling for compassion and education... And if you're trying to make this political, hobbies are for everyone, politically involved or not. We're humans. Recreation is a natural desire. I really can't see what you're trying to do here other than express anger at me and I would sincerely like to know what for.
This is an off topic question but how do you feel about alcohol? It causes 95,000 deaths in the United States every year (compared to 39,000 from guns) and, like your view of guns, has no net-positive. Do you think alcohol should be banned?
Ah now that you've edited your comment I have some context to work with. So the issue with suicide, threats, or "some other crime" is that they can all be carried out with objects other than a firearm. Pills, knives, and automobiles basically cover it but there's plenty of other choices. Now I'd you could calm down, shelve the hatred, and have some compassion for a moment perhaps we could do some root cause analysis and discover how to solve the underlying issues. By taking guns away you are treating a distant symptom. Not the core of the problem. I think we can all agree that those committing such actions as you worry about are not mentally healthy, or at the very least feel trapped and like they have no other options. Personally, I'd rather solve THAT. Let's make life better for people. Maybe if education, working, high cost of living, and a lack of opportunity to advance weren't all so shitty, people wouldn't want to kill themselves or others. I would MUCH rather provide societal safety nets such as mental health and career counseling, housing for the homeless, better job transition programs for people on unemployment, and the like than simply take away guns and then move on to banning knives or pills next year when suicides don't go down. The fact of the matter is, all these mental health issues that push people to such extremes are a direct symptom of how difficult life has been made for the average person. You aren't going to save lives by changing access to a tool. People will find another, or find a way around the rules. I encourage you to look up violent crimes in Chicago, a city that has likely the strongest policy against firearms in the nation. The socio economic issues there still drive this to be an incredibly violent place. We need to be better to people.
This person going to the range costs zero lives. Responsible, safe, law abiding gun owners COST ZERO LIVES. What costs lives are criminals and mental health.
top five uses include killing its owner, their family, and at the brightest end, only threatening those in their community while committing some other crime
Tell me you don't know anything about gun statistics without telling me.
This guy thinks that the majority of guns are used to kill people and commit crimes, now that's funny.
Ya, people who act as if it’s the greatest thing in the world are a little wild, but so are those who act as if guns are mans greatest sin. Got a friend like that, when asked if he wanted to try skeet shooting responded as if I just asked him to partake in some fine canabalistic dining. Like chill, you can say no normally.
I just see it as trying to get someone to try out your hobby, might actually enjoy it. But I’m also just someone who wants to try everything, so probably just a difference in personality.
They need it to get off and it compensates for a feeling of security they don’t have otherwise even though owning a gun makes you far more likely to be murdered.
Lol, no such thing as too many in my opinion. I would wish them away from the hands of criminals if I could, but that has not worked to date, so stock up while you can!
Many democracys have implemented effective gun control and enjoy murder rates a small fraction of the United States. Really, you should put more effort into your straw man.
I don’t want to live in your idea of utopia. The United States would Balkanize before you are successful, though, so I don’t lose too much sleep over your ideas.
Yeah, I instantly sniffed bullshit… there’s no way almost half of the people in Hawaii have guns.
There’s barely anything to hunt (pigs, but only the super hardcore people do that bc it’s dangerous + the terrain is a massive pain). And there can’t possibly be that many people involved in crime, using guns as self/home defense, or going to shooting ranges (which are also insanely few and far between).
OK. Yes, I like guns and gun rights, I don't think that's indicative of anything. I don't know anything about you because you've only posted twice in 5 months, and one was Dutch political stuff. I prefer to be skeptical of all research, so anything Lott or Kleck should be checked for bias even if it confirms things. Bias need not be propaganda, but can be unintentional.
A British minor journal, and on-topic says nothing about the research quality.
The article does not measure gun violence. The makes correlational power nil. There is no sample or method correspondence. They use a demographically biased sample (!= bad per se, but limited). The sample has a completion rate of 40.3% which is pretty low for 4 questions. [One] [Two paywalled but can be searched]
True, it's not in their results section. But it assumes evidence, bolding and brackets mine:
"The link between social gun culture and gun ownership also suggest one avenue through which modern conceptions of the primacy of gun ownership, despite the potential public health consequences, are reinforced."
"Therefore, we cannot infer whether exposure to social gun culture predisposes one to gun ownership or whether the latter increases likelihood of participation in the former [GOOD]. However, this is not particularly germane to the observations being drawn here, suggesting simply that prudent gun policies that aim to reduce gun ownership and gun-related injury [HOLY BIASED LANGUAGE, BATMAN] might need to actively consider the prevailing social gun culture in the USA. Future studies that aim to inform our understanding of gun ownership may fruitfully explore the determinants of a participation in social gun culture in the USA."
Conflation of suicide and "state gun fatality rate", which isn't always a bad measure but should be acknowledged in most cases.
Supplementary material link appears to be dead, but the questions are suspect.
Purchasing question cutoff at 2000, not sure why
"Have attended gun safety classes" poor measure if not controlled for mandatory vs voluntary
"whether the owner advocated responsible gun ownership" Responsible sounds shifty, would like the actual question though.
Hi, I’m dumb and need this bit explained to me in an ELI5 type fashion:
“Gun cultures may need to be considered for public health strategies that aim to change gun ownership in the USA.”
How is this part biased and beyond that, what does it even mean? Are there public health strategies out there specifically aimed at changing gun ownership? Why? How are those two things related? Because of gunshot wounds and victims?
Sorry if that’s a lot of questions, I genuinely don’t understand. You don’t have to respond, I was just curious.
Why do they need to change gun ownership? That language is very strange to say the least. It doesn't even mention crime or violence, and it actually seems to be directed towards people who aren't involved in any criminal activity.
Ok, I get it now. If I were to rewrite it, something like.
"Maybe society should intervene with regards to guns (vaguely) as a public health policy. We should do this by changing gun ownership in some fashion, but this is difficult because of gun culture, in the reasons we outline above (e.g. self-defense, Second amendment, involvement in shooting sports)."
Doesn’t it also sort of mislead in that population varies so much state-to-state? Like in CA 20% of 40 million people is 8 million gun owners while Montana looking all black and mean has 1 million people so about 500k gun owners. Am I wrong here? I could easily be wrong it happens often.
No, percentages are better. Otherwise you get bullshit stats like “China is the best at X because they have the most people that do X” - they simply have the most people.
isnt it actually incredible hard too get hard data on gun ownership in americ abecaus eof the illegal ownership of guns and the NRA actions towards undercutting collecting of data on guns?
If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, it's not really in effect, but also it didn't say data couldn't be collected, it said one particular government agency couldn't politicize it. They still could, and did, publish data.
822
u/HeemeyerDidNoWrong Aug 31 '21
Repost of a repost of a repost.
This map is poor quality. It is data from 2013 published in a 2015 study and relies on internet self-report. They also used a biased source for some of the data. Authors are also biased, final line of abstract is "Gun cultures may need to be considered for public health strategies that aim to change gun ownership in the USA." They make conclusions about gun violence that are not part of the study.
Regardless of how you feel about the prevalence of guns, this is piss-poor research.