Iām out for tonight, so nobody need rush to answer, and thank you @Snowlark!
I understand the risks, but Iām hoping somebody will be able to shed some light for me on the psychology behind peopleās fear of guns.
1 Like
Because people fear what they are unfamiliar with.
The most scared I have been using an object in recent memory was an old school chain saw. Safety features, ha! Ergonomics, ha! Even weight displacement, ha! This thing was punishing to use, loud, powerful, and I was cutting down a tree that was actually large enough to kill me if it fell on me. I did it, I felt accomplished afterwards, but it was still scary.
Of course this and other power tools are used by people every day with no ill effect. Once one gets familiar and proficient, fear goes away.
Remember when you started driving? Most people were nervous, on edge, and laser focused. Now I get to work on autopilot some days.
Most peopleās only direct experience with guns is TV, Movies, and video games. And pretty much 99.9+% of what they show is guns used in crime and war. Sometimes by good guys, some times by bad guys, but pretty much exclusively war and crime.
Certainly guns are used for those two things, but the REALITY is that most, nearly all, of the 80 million gun owners in the US hurt NO ONE with their firearms. But unless you are exposed to it, you have no idea how many people shoot and how often and how they manage to do it safely. Very rarely does TV or Movies show guns used in a recreational light. There are shows on the Outdoor Channel and other similar channels that show hunting or other shooting sports, but few people are exposed to them.
I have said in the past that if you showed cars the way you showed guns, no one would just drive to the store for milk on TV. Every time they entered the car they would be gun it, get in a wild chase, side swipe people, and do a jump off of a ramp. That is how unrealistic guns are on TV.
And this isnāt a new thing. The āfast draw show downā was a rarity in the Old west, but you would see half a dozen a week on TV. It wasnāt just TV, pulps, dime novels and even newspapers exaggerated the exploits of the west way before Radio and TV.
TL;DR - fear of what they are unfamiliar with, and a negative bias based on a life time of real crime and war and even more examples of entertainment with crime and war.
6 Likes
I have been rebuilding prewar german rifle scopes lately. I have a pretty good handle on the optics and machining bit, but crosshairs/post reticles are killing me. I have been experimenting with spider silk and baby hair, with some limited success. I have found spring steel wire the approximate thickness for post reticles, but getting the ends tapered right has been a trial. I have a good stereo microscope, but not the tools to do the work. The last one I put together looks great to the eye, but once assembled, the posts look like they were made by a caveman with twigs.
2 Likes
Interesting since the number of legal pistol owners/shooters here is far too small to be a market.
1 Like
Yes, but the Japanese have a rich history of fire arm making.
They currently still make the nice Browning Citori over/under shot guns in various grades. IIRC Winchester moved all their lever action tooling to Japan as well.
They are also crazy obsessed with guns. Their depictions in Manga, and Anime are the most accurate you will see anywhere. They also are known to make the most realistic airsoft and gun replicas. I have a British Sterling model they made that was converted to a stormtrooper blaster.
2 Likes
Two reasons I fear guns:
The first is basic human irrationality. That is, my own. To use your example, I might end up getting killed by HCās energy policy, but itās probably going to be a long, tedious, anticlimactic death, which I can do little or nothing to prevent. However, getting attacked is something my adrenal glands know how to deal with, and they donāt respond well to logic. So, when I see a gun and think, āThat could hurt me,ā it causes a fear response, which a bunch of numbers donāt.
The second is basic human irrationality. That is, everybodyās, including my own. I am under no illusion that anybody actually wants me dead enough to waste a bullet on me. But if anyone with a gun did want me dead, because I unintentionally offended them in a moment of emotional instability, thereās almost nothing I could do to stop them. And between reading a whole lot of YANSS, and actually observing my own mind to see how many of the decisions I make are based on logic and how many are based on emotion, and extrapolating that to other people, and removing the self-awarenessā¦ Itās not a comforting train of thought.
I honestly donāt see why anyone needs a handgun, excepting maybe police. Putting them in the hands of 80 million people pretty much guarantees that at lest some of them will use them in moments of emotional turmoil. It just seems like a bad idea.
5 Likes
Thank you!
Isnāt it also irrational to believe police might need handguns, but rural ranchers donāt? A cowhand on horseback in rattlesnake territory a hundred miles from any police officer is not a danger to you, but your local police force certainly is.
1 Like
My local police force probably isnāt: Iām middle-class, white, and Canadian. And, once the majority of the handguns are off the street, Iād like the police disarmed of handguns too.
Why does the cowhand need a handgun, instead of a long-gun? From what I understand, the only advantages of handguns are that theyāre more portable and more concealable, and Iām pretty sure Iāve seen saddle-holsters for long guns (on TV at least), so those shouldnāt be as much of a factor.
3 Likes
I get it, but at the same time your irrational fears donāt line up with reality.
I know someone so terrified of guns, they canāt even stand in line at Wendyās behind a cop. They can clearly visualize them spinning around and shooting them for no reason. Of course that is possible. It is also possible they spin around and stab you. Or cold cock you. Some people get scared of large males for this reason. (And this line of thinking leads to much darker things, like racism).
Yeah, I get where you are coming from. You donāt use it, you donāt especially like it, you donāt see why someone needs it. First off, āneedā is subjective. Second off āneedā isnāt and shouldnāt be the criteria on what one should be allowed to own or do. No one āneedsā most of the stuff in life. Like Alcohol. That destroys many more lives than guns (and is a factor in some gun deaths). Smoking is another one.
But again, your fear isnāt lining up with reality. The percentage of gun murders is a fraction of a percent compared to the number of owners.
Fun fact - most people murdered know their attacker. Do you know someone like that? If so, avoid them, you just upped your odds. In large cities most VICTIMS are also involved in illicit activities. Are you involved in illicit activities? No? Good, your odds are even better now. If you are white, Latino, or Asian and are middle class or better, you just further distanced yourself from a gun death.
So I donāt want to come off as too glib. Fear is fear and you canāt always talk your way out of it. Fortunately, you most likely will never see a gun other than those owned by cops (unless you visit an owner showing one off or something.)
1 Like
Iām not a gun guy, but I will tell you what I think and others can correct it if needed.
Handguns are primarily defensive, long-guns are offensive, shotguns and carbines occupy some middle ground. The rancher with a pistol has it with him when heās on a horse, when heās in a pickup, and when heās on the ground trying to disentangle a calf from a fence. Itās safely and securely in reach at all times.
Itās also very speedily to hand. A skilled horseman can draw and accurately shoot a pistol from horseback* in less time than it takes to pull a long gun out of the sheath. And if the horse is reacting to a snake or feral hog, and you have to jump or be thrown, you will still have the pistol when you hit the ground.
I think the reason criminals like to use handguns instead of shotguns is the concealability you mentioned. Shotguns, with their wide variety of easily available loads, would generally suit their purposes a lot better, just as they are more functional in hunting and home defense situations.
@Mister44, I just want to know the reasons in peopleās minds. I think @nimelennar illuminated a key issue by acknowledging the irrationality of humans and of our fears. The things that scare me arenāt really rational, either, so I have to find ways to work around them.
* I used to exercise a guyās horse for him, and he would hand me a loaded Cavalry Colt before I saddled up every time, because you have to keep the horse accustomed to this so it stays calm.
1 Like
I get that. Intrusive thoughts. Theyāre not nice.
I have fired a rifle in the past (though, Iāll admit, not particularly well). But yes, I wouldnāt say I āuseā one in the present tense.
I donāt see how. Emotional needs, yes, those are subjective. But āThis is something I need to do my jobā or āto stay aliveā or āto hunt dinnerā are pretty cut-and-dry. When I need something unusual (access, training, resources) at work, I need to write up a business case why I need whatever-it-is to do my job. I would hope that is being evaluated objectively.
Letās split things into āpotentially harmful to othersā and āharmlessā for the moment.
For āharmlessā things, then yes. No one should be able to stop me from owning or doing what I like, as long as Iām only posing a risk to myself or my own property.
Once I start risking other peopleās lives or property, āneedā indeed should be the criteria that determines whether I get it.
In computer security, thereās something called the Principle of Least Privilege. That is, you are given exactly the access you need to do your job, and not a whisker more. If you need access to one file that you donāt have, you put in a request, and youāre given access to that file, but not the other files in that directory. This limits the amount of damage people can do, either accidentally or maliciously.
The same thing should apply to meatspace, and, in some places, it does. If Iām a epidemiologist, and want to do research on [insert dangerous pathogen here], I need to show that I need access to that pathogen, and probably do a whole bunch of leg work on my study, before Iām given access to it.
Iām a strong believer in the idea that every right and every privilege come with a corresponding responsibility attached. If Iām given the access to edit the payroll file, I have the privilege to do so, but I also have the responsibility to only do so when my job demands it of me, and to only make the changes that are part of doing my job. I donāt use that privilege to screw with someone elseās paycheck, or boost my own: such a thing will, and should, get me fired. If my job doesnāt include a responsibility to make use of that access, I shouldnāt have that access.
I believe both alcohol and tobacco, in any rational world, should be Scheduled substances. However, since alcohol is so easy to make, and prohibition is much more harmful than the harms it tries to prevent, I will concede, for now, at least, that it needs to be freely available. As for tobacco, I think weāre slowly winning that war.
I conceded that, didnāt I? My own irrationality is part of whatās driving my fear.
Avoid who? The person who is going to attack me in the future? How, short of precognition, do you suggest that? Or do you suggest avoiding anyone I know? Or anyone who owns a gun? That last one would seem to run counter to your point that most people with guns arenāt dangerous. I honestly donāt know what you mean by āsomeone like that.ā
Anyway, my point is basically one about numbers, about which, weāre basically saying the same thing. Youāre saying, āIf eighty million people own guns, and only a fraction of one percent are dangerous, then most of them arenāt dangerous!ā Iām saying, āMost people arenāt dangerous, but if you give eighty million people guns, youāre going to give a few to dangerous people.ā
2 Likes
My point is that while people are victims of random crime, most of the time they know their attackers. It isnāt an out of the blue thing, but an escalation that has been building. Domestic abuse or people who are associate criminals are two of the main causes for murders.
So if no one is stalking or threatening you and you arenāt engaged in crime, your chances for being murdered are much less.
Yes, but where does one draw lines on this? No one āneedsā a sports car. These things are much more powerful, are harder to control, and may make one more likely to speed or act recklessly (it certainly makes it much easier for one to do so if they are inclined.)
How about private swimming pools? No one NEEDS a private pool. Highlighted in Freakonomics, one is more likely to have an accidental death in their home from owning a pool, vs owning a gun.
But when it comes to āneedā with firearms, 1) many people do use them for defense (though they are unlikely to actually have to USE them for defense, and 2) There are many legitimate sports out there that use handguns.
Conversely, letās look at the misuse of handguns. Most of the people using handguns for crime are criminals. I have data on some large cities that break down gun crime way better than the FBI stats. Something like 99% of murders have arrest records. I canāt tell how many people that equates to felony convictions, but it is clear many if not most of them should have their access and privilege already revoked. Dept of Justice survey, though older, shows that 80% of those convicted of gun crimes got their guns from either the black market or from family/friends. Another more recent paper showed 79% of criminals caught with guns possess guns not ātheirsā - they either stole it or it technically belonged to some one else. So the people doing the worst crime and hurting people are already going around the roadblocks in place.
Yes, that is true. But as Snowden said, āIf you live in a free society, you will never be with out some risk.ā
A poor diet or smoking doesnāt break into my house and shoot me or shoot me on the street after a traffic disagreement.
Iāll reiterate that Iām intimately familiar with firearms before the āfear of guns from not knowing themā is brought up again. I grew up with gun totinā family. Hunters, horse ranchers, etc. I learned to shoot as a child. I own firearms because I havenāt found a reason to remove them and I live in a rough town with a lot of random violent crime and a police force that does nothing. That said, Iād happily comply with sane gun control laws (and already comply with Californiaās).
7 Likes
One summer I worked with an excavation crew building cattle watering ponds. For the most part they dug out existing bodies of water, which were usually infested with water moccasins, and often shooting them was the safest and most expedient manner of dealing with them. Handguns are the norm because when getting in and out of vehicles, on and off equipment all day a long gun tangles, catches, and gets in the way. If you rarely need a firearm, but when you do you need it right then, getting your job done with a rifle slung on your back is near impossible.
Is it prudent for someone in the middle of Chicago to have access to dynamite? No. Is it safe and useful for someone working theyāre farm or ranch? Sure can be. Context matters.
6 Likes
That right there.
6 Likes
Ah. Your initial post didnāt make that clear. Thanks for clarifying.
Iām not going to get into an in-depth argument on who āneedsā a gun. Iāve given you my rationale for why someone might need something āriskyā (for instance, a gun), insofar as it might have been unclear in my initial response to @Medievalist.
Thank you for demonstrating why I am still afraid of the guns belonging to the 80MM ānot-dangerousā people.
True. And perhaps itās impossible to effectively lower risk without curtailing some freedom. That doesnāt mean that we should never attempt to lower risks.
3 Likes
And also, prevents any creative work from being done by breaking the flow of human ingenuity.
The Principle of Least Privilege is one of those theoretical things that sounds great but typically breaks down immediately in contact with the real world, because it strongly incentivizes people to social engineer the sysadmins, and because a sysadmin who actually believes he knows what privileges users āreallyā need is almost always an arrogant nerd with no clue of what others think and feel.
What? You guys already comnpletely sidetracked the thread anyway!
4 Likes
Hijacking! Another use for handguns!
4 Likes
But we have attempted to reduce risk. We have hundreds, probably thousands on the books. Gun laws seem to have little to no affect on gun crime. There has been several federal and state gun laws, and none of it appears to have any real impact on gun crime. Before 1968 one could have an AR-15 delivered to their home - yet we didnāt have the problems we have now.
People like to hold up Canada (which has pretty similar laws), the UK, and Australia of examples. Their murder rate was not greatly affected by their gun laws. Yes murder declined in a downward fashion - but murder is down in the US as well. There isnāt a downward dip post ban, but a smooth decrease. Also, before the bans none of them had anywhere near the gun crime and murder rate as the US. Canada still has a much lower rate, despite having similar laws. Mexico has very draconian laws, but yet are awash in murder.
It is pretty clear to me on researching this, laws are not going to fix this. Just like the drug laws have done little to nothing to curb drug use.
Anyway - before I get accused of derailing, if someone wants to branch this out be my guest.
1 Like
Well, the drug laws have very effectively allowed for secret funding of illegal government spookery, empowered racism in law enforcement, and kept safe drugs out of the hands of those who arguably needed them, so you canāt say they havenāt achieved anyoneās goals.
Similarly the debate over gun access is very effective at keeping urban and rural populations contemptuous of each other, so itās certainly helping prevent effective coalition building at the grassroots.
5 Likes
