[hypeatei]

> I think this is not too surprising?

I don't think we should normalize cover ups like this especially when it comes to political violence studies. POTUS immediately blamed the "radical left" after the attack without evidence. Not only is that reckless, it's not even the most likely scenario.

> If you already have guns, the threshold for terrorist actions is likely lower

Guns are easily accessible to everyone in America.

[jdiff]

Guns are accessible, but prior gun ownership is skewed, and prior gun ownership is one less barrier to cross when attempting political violence. In theory, that should mean increased attempts for that high-gun-ownership demographic.

[mingus88]

Exactly, because owning a gun and being trained are very different things.

I own guns but I am not capable of performing a Charlie Kirk style assassination. Nor could I actually carry out a school shooting with high rate of fire across many weapons.

Both of these crimes require that the shooter have training and practice in this style of shooting. You need specialized equipment beyond what a casual gun owner will spend. Buying a 9mm and going to the range every couple of months isn’t cutting it.

Gun culture creates the environment where folk are prepping for combat situations. Go watch any guntuber and you’ll see them train for military situations that your hunter, farmer, or even family defense gun owner is not concerned with.

In fact, I learned that there’s a pejorative term “Fudds” for gun owners who aren’t militarized like this. As in, Elmer Fudd; an actual hunter that uses guns for game. Somehow this is not a respectable person for a gun nut.

When gun ownership becomes a hobby and personality trait you see a lot more people optimizing their habits toward maximum lethality

[Insanity]

True, but if you already have them at home and you’re raised in a family that uses them, presumably the barrier to using one is lower.