Hacker News Reader

Comment by Acrobatic_Road | Hacker News Reader

Not really. Texas is about to become a 2A sanctuary, Utah, Iowa, Texas, Tennessee, Florida are close to passing constitutional carry. Kansas wants to expand concealed carry to 18-20 year olds. Gun sales are at record highs, etc etc.

View on HN

The numbers suggest that a minority of gun owners are buying more and more guns, not that we are seeing more and more gun owners as a percentage — just gun hoarding.

No. Five million gun purchase background checks were done last year for new gun owners.

https://www.nssf.org/first-time-gun-buyers-grow-to-nearly-5-...

At no time in history have more Americans owned guns per-capita

Not according to industry surveys such as data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) which reported that 40% of new guns sold in 2020 went to first time buyers, a total of 5 million new gun owners.

There's also reason to believe that in an increasingly anti-gun climate, gun owners are lying on traditional gun ownership surveys. On these studies, there's always a significant portion of respondents who refuse to answer the question. I think these are silent gun owners. When democrats like Beto are calling for gun confiscation, would you want to make yourself known as a gun owner?

I realize this is anecdata, but I can confirm that my wife has personally lied on a survey about gun ownership. I've never been part of a survey that asked, but would definitely lie if I was.

It should also be noted that phone surveys bias women. How many husbands hide their guns from their wife? I know my dad did.

Um, that statistic you just quoted says that the majority of new guns sold were to existing gun owners, so it's perfectly consistent with the thesis you are using it to contradict (and that's even before considering how many of those first-time buyers aren't first-time owners, but people raised in gun-owning families making their first independent purchase.)

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.)

The increase over time in guns per capita is the smaller share of gun owning households getting more guns each: more women in those households getting guns, more guns per adult owner, and kids in gun families getting real firearms younger.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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-f...

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)

> 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.

> 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.

Still not serious:

1. The increase in new gun owners is a change of direction.

2. The fact that most of the new gun owners are in previously unrepresented groups shows this. I.e. it can’t be just noise.

3. If you are claiming it is an artifact caused by neglecting deaths or people becoming non-gun owners, you need a real analysis, otherwise you are just introducing unsubstantiated FUD about the methodology. Like I said, and you have essentially agreed - not a serious critique.

4. How do you know that if there are 5 million net new gun owners it is not part of a change in the trend? That is a naked assertion that evaluates to simply ignoring the data that would indicate a change.

I will share the anecdote that I know people who work at shooting ranges, and they say that they have been completely innudated with new shooters.

That simply wouldn’t be the case if it were just an artifact of the numbers.

It’s worth pointing out that if there is any correctness to the idea that the mass of gun owners trends older and so are dying and the trend is towards new gun owners trending younger, then the upward trend would be stronger than the numbers show and would be masked rather than negated.

Fewer people might own hungting rifles. But way more people are purchasing handguns and ar-15s

Gun owners are a minority in this country. The average american doesnt own one, let alone ten.

The minority just is lou.d as hell. The NRA used to be a reasonable organization with a reasonable mission. Then it went batshit crazy

Do you have a source for this?

It was my understanding that the majority of American households owned at least one firearm.

Edit: I found this [1], but the numbers seem a bit questionable. Even if you take them at face value, 44% doesn't seem to qualify as a vocal minority.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own...

Household is different than person

Just because someones father has a gun doesnt make the kid a gunowner or say anything about their attitude towards 2A

Sure, so let’s stop counting those people as though they are against gun ownership.

Im just saying that they are automatically being included as pro gun whereas the measurement should be individual gun ownership. Not the household stat which is obviously used to make it look more impressive.

And remember it's not binary, a lot of people are indifferent and many want more gun restrictions and some want less

Back to my original point is the average american does not own a gun

> the average American does not own a gun

Remember it’s not binary - the average American owns approximately 40% of a gun.

Actually if we do the math that way everyone owns about 1.1 guns.

Not really - if people own guns for home defense, then it’s reasonable not to buy one for each person in a household, and yet those people are still part of a gun owning group that happens not to need one each.

I presume each family member in such a household doesn’t each own their own vacuum cleaner or stove, either.

It’s not reasonable to count all these people as ‘gun owners’ in their own right, but it’s also not reasonable to pretend it’s binary.

That is true, less than a third. That is a pretty large minority as minorities go. And almost half 48% live in a house with a firearm. 72% have fired one. It isn't an unusual aspect of life in the US by any definition.

Another reason I've never regretted leaving Texas.

Well you must be onto something, because Californians are leaving for Texas in record numbers.

Like every other state, there is a stark divide in the culture and politics of the major metropolitan areas and everywhere else. San Francisco vs parts of rural Northern California are an even starker example of that than what you would see between Austin or San Antonio and rural Texas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com