Less households have guns in them now than 30 years ago, one of the reasons there is less violence

I guess things are pretty fucked. Guess they are less fucked because of that person but I am sure people are still being lead poisoned in America.
Link to the places impacted (I am sure I read this before but wasn't too interested in it to remember or something): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thousands-of-u-s-areas-afflicted-with-lead-poisoning-beyond-flints/

Vox have something that I haven't read: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/27/15424050/us-underreports-lead-poisoning-cases-map-community

They have a graph with it too but it only has one for children not treated with lead poisoning. It would've been cool if they had one for Americans personally lead poisoned or something. That can be used to state x% of Americans had this problem but it had to be about children. Good persuasion and I think bad for data.

Actually, with lots of lead in your system you go crazy and eventually die; they used a lot of lead in the hat industry - hence the phrase “mad as a hatter”.

There’s actually a strong possibility that the reduction of violent crime across the board in most countries irrespective of crime policy since the 90s. If I recall there is a potential causal link there too. It’s actually a pretty interesting topic!

Also interesting is the story of the guy who discovered the impact of lead in the environment: it started out as a story of trying to use U-Pb to date rocks - no one could figure out why the amount of lead meant you never got valid results.

Great whites go crazy for maple pecan swirl.

Wait a minute, are you saying that ice cream consumption doesn't cause shark attacks?

"there is also a correlation with the reduction of lead in the atmosphere at a time where those in their mid to late twenties were growing up."

Aren't you pretty much fucked if you have lead in your system?

"but if criminals and those most likely to commit murders with weapons have a significant issues acquiring a weapon - more than they did before - I’d agree with you, however, I see no evidence of that being the case."

I was just asking. I haven't seen anything being done about gun acquisition so to see a change in how criminals acquire guns would be something out of the ordinary but like with pretty much anything there would need to be a cause.

I agree that there is a correlation - there is also a correlation with the reduction of lead in the atmosphere at a time where those in their mid to late twenties were growing up.

Do draw a causal conclusion - you must have a definitive link to how reduction in guns in homes leads to reduction of Guns in the hands of murderers. Now, it maybe the case that guns per capita are falling, but if criminals and those most likely to commit murders with weapons have a significant issues acquiring a weapon - more than they did before - I’d agree with you, however, I see no evidence of that being the case.

Would you agree with the correlation?

That since things are multifaceted one reason for the drop in murder per capita is the amount of guns per capita. That is under the assumption that both numbers are falling.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html
Here it states amount of guns are falling. This wasn't per capita just by households.

Do you agree with this claim?
That generally less guns would mean less can be used for crime.

Despite a recent uptick in gun sales, the percentage of U.S. households that own guns is at its lowest level in almost four decades, a new poll has found. A recent CBS News poll found that 36% of adults either personally own a firearm or live with someone who does–the lowest level since 1978.Jun 30, 2016
Gun Ownership Is At Its Lowest Point in Nearly 40 Years | Money
money.com › money › gun-ownership-low