How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

bitmasher9

The whole concept of optimal levels of firearms ownership should have been expanded upon, as this premise is probably new to the audience and a cornerstone of their entire research.

Glyptodon

Are people who are armed because they enjoy shooting or hunting supposed to exist in this research model or not?

sp527

Anecdotally, a lot of politically far left people I know have gone quiet on the firearms issue. It seems like the state of the country has 2A suddenly making more sense to a lot of people.

alistairSH

Do they ever state the social optimum level of fun ownership? I can take them at their word they it’s non-zero, but I’d guess it’s orders of magnitude less than the current rate.

arjie

Boy, the game of telephone on the way to HN is really amazing. Paper: We make a stylized model that uses observed social networks in Honduran gangs and varies some parameters to match the US to see and it aligns with some things regarding how we exceed the socially optimal balance (based on the params). PR release: The researchers describe in Science Advances how individual incentives to buy firearms can lead to a phenomenon they call “overarming.” PR title: How Fear and Social Pressure Are ‘Overarming’ the U.S. HN title: Fear and Social Pressure Are ‘Overarming’ the U.S. Come on, guys.

fasterik

It's worth remembering that the American founders considered an armed population an essential part of a free society capable of standing up against federal overreach. James Madison, Federalist 46: >Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

kashunstva

> we find that a socially optimal level of ownership is often greater than zero I suppose one could model this in some way. But as a pacifist, vegan and never owner of firearms, I’m genuinely clueless as to how this could be. Is the social optimality here a function possessing weapons for hunting, which can be a social activity?

lenerdenator

In some ways, it's just the four boxes of liberty at work. The theory goes, there are four routes to "solving" social disputes/obtaining justice in modern societies: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. They are to be used in that order, because the consequences for society and human life get worse with each one. I put "solving" in quotes because you could argue that the last box doesn't really solve anything. Right now, at least, you have a large number of people in American society feeling as if social conflicts/injustices are going unaddressed in meaningful ways. I'll let you fill in the blanks as to what those are, but it's not always people who want the US to be like it was in 1955 who are arming themselves. An increasing number of people who are liberal or otherwise practice left-of-center politics, and people who are of historically-oppressed groups, are also starting to arm themselves. Ultimately, if you start meaningfully solving social conflicts and injustices with the first three boxes, you can avoid the fourth and you'll probably see firearm ownership growth begin to drop. I don't think you'll ever see it meaningfully go away in the US without an effort that few people would consider wise to attempt.

0x59

I own one gun. If another own guns, that's none of my business. The question, how many guns are "optimal" introduces a surface for regulation that is none of the government's business to be regulating.

kylehotchkiss

I guess you don’t really get to choose how to die but the idea of dying to gun violence sounds really shitty.

stronglikedan

people with a lot of guns aren't buying them for self defense. you only need one or two for that. any more and it's a hobby just like any other. "Overarming" is a loaded word with no real relevance to US gun culture.

chasd00

Rounds fired per gun owner per month would be an interesting statistic. The vast majority of people who buy a gun out of fear go to the range once and then put the gun in the top of the closet never to be seen again. I don't think they contribute anything in the cost/benefit equation to gun ownership for a society.

Valodim

It's kind of amazing how many comments even here seem to implicitly or explicitly agree that the "optimal" number is more than zero. Personally, I rather enjoy not having my kids shot at school.

mac3n

> "Our hope is that our model can play a role in a thoughtful data-driven conversation about one of the most societally and personally important decisions any person can make,” he says. good luck with that!