While concentration of firearms increases, according to a new Harvard/Northeastern study. This may help to explain the increasing stridency and paranoia of gun ownership groups as they seek to replace declining numbers with increased volume.
Politically, this suggests that support for gun safety legislation should be increasingly popular with the general public.
Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 130m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.
The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.
For the first time in 20 years, Australia’s national arsenal of private guns is larger than it was before the Port Arthur massacre.
But here’s the thing: fewer Australians now own guns. Since 1988, the proportion of households with a firearm fell by 75%.
So long as places like Wyoming and Idaho have as many Senators as California and New York, we are unlikely to see the sweeping federal gun control legislation folks here are pining for. Additionally, it’s usually the fourth or fifth priority on a progressive or centrist voters list, while its the number 1 issue for the voters the NRA targets and successfully brings to the polls.
Since it seems like such a tall order to change the politics of this issue, perhaps it’s better to focus on passable policies that take the 30,000 killed annually down to a saner number. Less than .01% of those deaths came from mass shootings by assault weapons this year.
Given that overwhelming numbers of gun owners are open to reasonable controls I think even the ID and WY Senators would suffer less politically than they fear. The NRA’s power comes largely from making people afraid where in reality they are asserting political facts not in evidence.
Small progress, but I’ll take it.
…you need one gun for every person in your household who can use one. Anything above that is showing off.
Methinks few people “need” a gun. However, for people who choose to own them, there are lots of different kinds of shooting hobbies that require different guns. Hunting bird, hunting buck, hunting targets at a shooting range, and hunting home intruders might well call for four very different kinds of guns.
I’m personally not a fan of any of ’em, but your claim is no different than saying that I only need one kind of flathead screwdriver. I own dozens.
Apparently that didn’t come across very well. I was focusing on those who gobble up the guns at the first hint of controls rather than those who might acquire different ones for different purposes from time to time. I don’t think people need guns either for the most part.
….that this study IS unpublished? Two Boston based universities have little to fear in terms of repercussions. Where is this British newspaper going with this?
It didn’t take me too long to find the following (emphasis mine):
According its website:
So, in answer to your question — no, it doesn’t strike me as “odd” at all. It’s a pre-publication blurb.
I guess that, for me, a better question is where are YOU going with this comment?
Close reading of the actual article suggests the Guardian and the Trace are basing their claims upon the “survey result summary” and interviews with authors of the study… not, necessarily, the actual study. This, further, suggests the authors are both driving the release and confident in the peer review process. They are (and as you note having little fear of repercussions) ‘teasing’ the story in advance of publication.