Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

If you assume that every gun owner who kills somebody only kills one person (either themselves or somebody else), divide 33,000 deaths per year into 1 million gun owners. You get 30 years and 4 months. That's how long it would take to get to 1% of gun owners at the present rate.

So, sincerely, I know it seems counter-intuitive to people who don't know the data, and don't consider social and economic factors, but truly, it's not the guns *causing* gun crime. They're a symptom, not a cause. Now, I'll get to the 1993 bit...

Sorry, before the 1993 bit: Socioeconomics are also why every single country with worse socioeconomics than the US has worse gun homicides. Most countries south of us, for example. It's a 100% correlation. Now, onto the 1993 thing:

This is going to seem like a non-sequitur, but I don't think it is. There are many factors that led to the decline in gun homicides after its peak in 1993. But one thing to consider is this: It peaked around that time *everywhere*. Not just in the US.

More specifically, violent crime (murder especially, regardless of implement used) peaked almost everywhere in the world between 1991 and 1996, then began declining. This excludes places where wars have started, or other major calamities.

Because of that, it's pretty easy to rule out "gun laws" such as the Brady Bill as a source of our decline in gun homicides. There was only a Brady Bill here, obviously. But we can go farther than just "it wasn't gun control laws."

Roe v Wade was ruled in 1973. At that point, unwanted babies were born at a lesser and lesser rate. Prior to that, women would be forced to have the kid, and kids people don't want often are raised poorly. They end up much more likely to be criminals.

So, kids born in 1972 would've been 21 in 1993, which is peak age for violent crime. Younger kids were more likely to be born to parents who wanted them, thus were raised better. Crime starts to fall. But that's not all.