I've been very critical of so-called gun research for a while. There's a very good reason, which we've talked about at length. Basically, it's all garbage.
We can look at the research and tell it's garbage, but a researcher at Georgia State University just said the quiet part out loud.
See, the research he published doesn't look particularly awful. It looks at how social media posts by gun rights and gun control groups influence gun purchasing behavior. It's an interesting concept because gun purchases aren't driven by quite the same dynamics you see with other products, so I was genuinely interested in what he found.
Let's start there.
A new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Nexus journal reveals the complex interaction among media coverage, social media activity, and firearm purchases.
Led by Igor Belykh, a professor of applied mathematics at Georgia State University, the research team—including Kevin Slote, a PhD student in Georgia State’s mathematics and statistics doctoral program; Kevin Daley, a recent graduate; and coauthors from New York University (NYU) and the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT)—analyzed daily data from 2012 to 2020.
...
While fear of mass shootings and new gun regulations are often cited as factors for impulsive gun purchases, the research indicates that social media lobbying by anti-regulation groups and targeted media coverage are more influential factors in driving firearm acquisitions. Personal safety concerns drive many gun buyers more than reactions to mass shootings or potential legislative changes.
...
“We found this complex, interwoven web of media and social media variables and how it influences people’s decision to buy guns,” says Slote.
“It’s not as simple as people just reacting to news about mass shootings or gun laws.”
Interesting, right?
Of course, I'd argue that personal safety concerns themselves can be driven by things like mass shootings or potential legislative changes. I mean, I might get a gun because of personal safety, but I'm buying it now because the government wants to make it illegal for me to do so.
So, like I said, interesting. Of course, Cam covered this one already, but just like Belyk had to open his mouth, I have to do the same to comment on his outright bias.
Belykh adds, “Our findings suggest that efforts to reduce gun purchases might be more effective if they focus on addressing fear of violent crime rather than mass shootings.”
Why are you trying to reduce gun purchases?
These are lawful gun sales, after all. These are people buying a legal product that can be used to save their own lives. Why are there any efforts to reduce lawful purchases?
But, Belykh isn't the first to say such a thing. Others have alluded to this desire to reduce gun sales for some reason, and it's baffling to me.
The issue isn't legal gun sales. We know that criminals mostly get their guns through illicit means. The majority either steal guns or buy them off the black market. They're not going to gun stores to get them. A few are using straw buyers, but that's only a relatively small percentage, and those folks won't be discouraged from seeking guns through such a means no matter what you do.
That means that these efforts can only target law-abiding citizens who pose no problem at all.
Meanwhile, there's little to no research being done that might lead to discouraging illegal sales. Funny, that.
Make no mistake, not that any of you would, their goals have nothing at all to do with criminals. It's about you and me. We're the ones they want disarmed. We're the ones they see as a threat.
Which makes you wonder what they want to do, where they'd feel threatened by law-abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves from criminals and tyrannical governments.
Somehow, I think it involves more of that last thing than the previous one. Let's just call it a hunch.
