Yeah, unfortunately American has a set of core myths, many of which aren’t at all helpful, that we’ve collectively bought into, to a fanatical degree. The gun thing is one of them. Also unfortunately, the culture - and a poor education system - means few people examine those myths, much less critically.
7 Likes
I would agree that over half of America’s history (if you count colony days too) was spent with a significant number of people having to live in hostile environments with a lack of authoritarian law and order and having to fend for themselves. I mean, Europe from say 1750 to 1900 was more bloody by any measure, but it was from organized wars, not bands of out laws or justifiably hostile Native Americans, or even wild life. So to say our “frontier” history is a factor, I would agree. But then again, why doesn’t Europe’s love of war until recently appear to be a factor?
But I would say the more modern “way” of doing crime AND enforcement from after the turn of the century is a more relevant factor. I mean just looking it up, England and Wales executed 632 people from 1900 to 1949, compared to 6639 in the US. And for an idea of population size, the UK had about 40 million and the US 76 million in 1900. So as you can see, the APPROACH was vastly different. In short, the stakes were higher, the tensions elevated; violence was seen as part of the “job”. Cops had no problem shooting you in the back or beating the shit out of you when caught. And then the money to be made during Prohibition further upped the stakes.
I think an even bigger factor today, is that America is good at segregating its poor, allowing them to fester, amplifying a bad situation and making it worse. Doubly so for our poor minorities, with actual legal segregation until very recently. We still have horrible segregation in areas to this day (Fun fact: in areas that had segregation that wasn’t technically due to laws in the north, they never became desegregated). One can see this has had a big impact both in the mid century when crime started to climb, and today. Gee, less opportunities and resources, surrounded by people wanting them to “stay in their lane”, and one wonders why we have some horrible outliers in violence in most large cities even compared to the rest of the US.
I won’t disagree that firearms are used as symbols of both freedom and mascalinity. But what is inherent about freedom and mascalinity that makes one want to commit crimes and hurt others? Nothing. Now, one could say that a TOXIC version of mascalinity makes one want to over compensate with aggression and harm others. So I will agree some of these people are using guns as tool to perpetuate toxic masculinity.
I suppose it can’t be COMPLETELY divorced from it. But it is far enough removed from MOST people to not be relevant. I can say the that vast majority - “the mainstream part of the culture” [which there is no mono-culture, but I’ll put that aside] - have zero desire to hurt someone else. I know you can find me examples of Zimmermans, and one’s uncle who lives in a compound, and jackasses on youtube to bolster your point. But in the big picture it is no different than people posting every news article every time an illegal immigrant does more than jaywalk to make their points about how too many of them are “bad hombre”.
I think that is a decent analogy, because the vast majority of men aren’t the problem. But at the same time, the topic gets push back because some people are confusing specific negative traits with men in general. They feel their identity is being attacked and they lashed out, which actually makes the problem worse.
Yes, in the rural areas you have much more use for firearms because there are more critters. As well as space and freedom to use them. I and the people I shoot with are all Urban gun owners. We live around Kansas City but I did grow up in smallish towns, however. So that means we have to go out to organized ranges, and perhaps take part in organized shooting sports. Actually less chance for shenanigans.
But still, none of the people I shoot with have any of the 4 attitudes listed in the original post. Just the opposite. They are all extremely safety conscious, including one who is a USPSA Grand Master who teaches courses. Two of them are also into martial arts of various forms, including one who teaches Filipino stick fighting. But he also carries $50 of “don’t kill me” money in his wallet at all times. No one I know is looking to shot anyone in self defense. But they are prepared in case something bad happens. In the current climate, my Filipino friend is married to a Jewish woman with a bi-racial child. My coworker has been asking about defense because his wife and their bi-racial children have been targeted more than once since Trump was elected. So maybe it is a fair point that urban owners think about defense more, but we live around a lot more assholes 
But I don’t think we are WANTING to hurt anyone.
Or maybe you’re talking about stuff like those cringe inducing “lacking” videos. Yeah, those are horrible, but I’ve seen bad handling from “rednecks” as well. So while I did concede there were people with those 4 traits, they aren’t the majority.
Oh man - were you trying to be ironic? And why do I need a citation and not the four points raised? Where is th citation to back up “…but from what research I’ve seen, I’d say those are typical attitudes”?
OK the evidence that those 4 attitudes are not common among the majority of gun owners is - with 80 million owners there is a fraction of a faction of a percent killing others on purpose or accidentally. If we were all just waiting to kill a “mother fucker” while twirling our Pistoleros, there would be a lot more dead people. But no, most people take it seriously.
And if I too am allowed to use anecdotal evidence, then its actually knowing and interacting with people who shoot - not just what I see in memes, pop culture, or cringy idiots on youtube doing stupid stuff. Shit, they are the first to point out unsafe handling and all people idiots. So yes, there is room for improvement.
Like I said, you can find a plethora of negative examples that matches the stereotype. But like most stereotypes, they don’t align with actual reality.
2 Likes
Speaking of Ned…
2 Likes
Yes, I was being ironic.
There wouldn’t, though - because whipping out the gun “for self defense” ends with the “problem” cowering and then all is right with the world. At least, that’s how it usually plays out. (And yeah, there’s evidence to support that, if we look at studies about people who thought they used guns for self defense.)
Most of my friends have guns, and they all buy into the Toxic Gun Culture to one degree or another. It’s just part of the culture. You see it in almost every Hollywood movie and television show where a gun comes out.
8 Likes
Some time ago I came across this Harvard study on guns and self defense.
From the study:
4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.
5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.
11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
11 Likes
I disagree that it’s making the problem worse. People tend to think that we are going to solve problems like this by being careful not to make people defensive. I’m with Chris Rock - if people are over 30 you aren’t going to change their minds (with rare exception). Right now the people saying there needs to be change and the people getting their backs up about it are all doing so in front of a young generation that isn’t allowed to participate in the conversation yet. But young people of the school shooting generation are growing up, and they are already starting to influence the election of lawmakers. They are the ones who are going to change things, no matter how defensive old people get.
6 Likes
To be clear, the people pushing back and lashing out with out thinking about it are making the problem worse. For example with the topic at hand - almost every time Ted Nugent opens his mouth.
While I do feel people who are confronting the problem sometimes go about it the wrong way, problems need to be confronted.
Hashtag, #notallgunowners
Yes, thank you! That was some of the research I was trying to allude to (I couldn’t remember who had done it). There’s all sorts of research that finds that gun ownership frequently gives people a sense of power that causes them to escalate all sorts of situations (including things like doing more aggressive driving and road-rage), thus themselves becoming the problem. And when they cause a conflict and whip out their gun, the conflict is “resolved” because it was of their making to begin with.
The fact is, anyone who talks about guns and self-defense are talking about imaginary scenarios. In reality, opportunities to actually use a gun in self-defense are vanishingly rare. Moreover, being prepared for that improbable event would mean creating all sorts of problems for oneself in the meantime - having the gun used against you, increasing the likelihood of someone in the household committing suicide, or at best menacing innocent people with your gun (because in a real self-defense situation, the gun has to be out and ready before trouble erupts - waiting until after is usually too late). I mean, one thing that people like to cite as a fear is home invasion - but in the vast majority of home invasions, the homeowner opened the door for the invader. So unless one routinely answers the door by greeting visitors with a gun in their face, the gun doesn’t help…
7 Likes
How does that research normalize for the equally plausible explanation that aggressive people who are more likely to escalate interactions are more likely to purchase firearms because firearm ownership plays into their violent ideation? (It’s pretty hard to design a prospective study, and even harder to design an ethical one!) I mean this as a serious question: I am uninformed, not JAQing off and trying to discredit the research. The culture of violence is surely a serious problem, but it’s not clear to me which comes first, the violent behaviour or the firearm.
I’ll concede the point that the fantasy of using a firearm in self-defense is just that, a fantasy - it’s strongly supported by the available evidence. (Then again, I never argued otherwise.)
In any case, it’s probably a mark of my privilege that most of the firearm owners I know fall into the categories of, “occasionally either harvest a critter for food, or need to get rid of vermin”, and “have a job that may require armed response,” rather than “have some sort of violent fantasy of self-defense.” (I know more forest rangers than I do city cops - and while the rangers are armed LEO’s, their culture is very different.)
I’ll stick to my argument that gun violence is a serious public health problem that needs an evidence-based approach. Current public policy seems to revolve around suppressing relevant evidence. At first blush, it seems unlikely that a policy of broad prohibition would be any more effective against firearms than it was against alcohol. On the other extreme, state laws that, for example, forbid pediatricians from counselling parents about gun safety are reprehensible!
Personal status: I sold my 12-ga when I moved from New Hampshire to New York City in 1977. Never replaced it. So, not a current firearm owner, but not a ‘reformed sinner,’ either. Guns are tools that I don’t have a current use for. I made sure when my daughter was growing up that she got out to a range and learnt the basics, partly because firearms are so ubiquitous that knowing how to handle one safely may prove to be a survival skill. Consider this to be a strategy of ‘harm reduction.’
1 Like
Of the studies I’ve seen, there were varying levels of controlling for other factors. Studies involving driving habits tended to look at correlations between a tendency to have a gun in the car and aggressive driving/road rage. So they weren’t looking at why people had guns. However, I do recollect seeing at least one study that looked at people’s behavior before and after having a gun, and tracking changes in behavior.
There certainly is a rural/urban divide - the types of guns people have is a part of that, as rural folk are far more likely to have guns used as tools, and urban folk more as parts of power fantasies. Though my mother grew up in a rural area where everyone hunted - my grandfather was actually a game warden - and I was rather shocked how many of her classmates died in hunting accidents or committed suicide with guns. A different kind of gun violence from urban areas.
3 Likes
What I’ll pray is that police chiefs stop throwing peoples’ lives away serving warrants by having them create violent situations where there was none, based on paid confidential informants.
Odd that this is covered here as a mass shooting rather than what it was- yet another unnecessarily violent no knock raid by police. Yeah, we’re half-way to a police state but somehow the problem isn’t the cops bursting into peoples’ homes for the “crime” of consensual exchange. One might also call this “victim blaming”, which I thought was officially disapproved, but I’ll be nice and not flag.
As Reason’s Sullum put it, “the violent home invasion that police staged on Monday would have been reckless and immoral even if Tuttle and Nicholas were selling heroin. But the evidence against them seems to have been limited to the word of a paid confidential informant who claimed to have seen drugs and a handgun that were mysteriously gone the following day, even though police supposedly were watching the house in the interim.”
I completely agree that movies, TV, and video games present a completely unrealistic and hyper romanticize use of firearms.
I can think of one movie - an out take from We Were Soldiers - where guns were shown how they are actually used in the real world by most people (group of soldiers in off hours with their girlfriends shooting clay targets while talking about Plumlee.) I am sure there are a few more examples, but they are very far and few between.
3 Likes
Serving a legally obtained warrant should not, in itself, be enough to create a violent situation.
Say what you will about confidential informants but they were clearly right on the money about this couple.
1 Like
Other examples of what SOLDIERS use guns for?
1 Like
Are you trying to be funny, or did I not make my example clear? I can clarify if need. If I didn’t get the joke, mea culpa.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
