“New research finds the strongest motivation to buy handguns is the vague but deeply held perception that we live in a dangerous world,” psmag.com reports. Huh. Who’d a guessed it?
Ah, but the troika of academics behind Is It a Dangerous World Out There?: The Motivational Bases of American Gun Ownership reckon that handgun buyers are motivated by “two distinct impulses.”
Which would be “the specific perceived threat of assault, and a diffuse threat of a dangerous world.” So it’s the difference between that guy might try to kill me vs. someone might try to kill me.
A research team led by University of Groningen psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe [not shown above] reports that second, vague notion of potential peril is the stronger of the two—and the one most resistant to rethinking.
Wait. Who said that handgun owners need to stop thinking they live in a dangerous world? Why would they want to do that? Oh right.
Someone who doesn’t want Americans to keep and bear handguns! ‘Cause if they “rethought” their world view, seeing the world for the unicorn-pooping rainbows-bedazzled place that it really is, they’d stop buying and carrying handguns and the world would be safer!
Yeah, not buying it.
“This [resistance] could make it difficult to conduct persuasion campaigns aimed at dissuading handgun owners of the need to own a gun (or support limitations on gun ownership),” they write. That’s because “a broader system of beliefs about the nature of the social world, and what people are like, is extremely difficult to influence.”
Not to go all Godwin’s Law, but perhaps Goebbels‘ ghost would like to opine on how anti-gunners could “influence” gun owners’ “broader system of beliefs about the nature of the social world” to convince handgun owners to surrender their firearms or make it exceedingly difficult for a civilian to own one?
No matter how you look at it, this particular piece of academic anti-gun animus is a special blend of stupid and scary.
The Trace pimped the study (natch), characterizing American handgun owners’ motivations as “an overblown fear of violent crime.” The Huffington Post was on the study like Scott Diseck on anything female. New Study Says Fear of Crime, Danger Drives American Handgun Ownership was helpfully sub-headed Handgun owners are more fearful of crime, even when it is unlikely.
“While the primary goal of the research is to serve as a building block for further study, Stroebe does think there’s some practical application. ‘If we want to help people conquer their fears, we have to recognize that a sense of threat can have multiple layers and each layer may have to be addressed separately,’ he said.”
So the German psychologist behind this study — not that there’s anything wrong with being German — wants to peel away handgun owners’ anti-crime and tyranny motivations like an onion. Here’s psmag.com’s final take:
This is frustrating news for gun-control advocates. Clearly, many American men learn early on life that a.) it’s a nasty world out there, and b.) the best way to protect yourself is with a gun. Change may require the coming of age of a new, better-educated generation.
So gun control advocates are hoping for a less fearful, “better educated” generation to support civilian disarmament. Educated by the anti-gun academics that infest the American education system, of course (who else?). And by “better educated” they mean “blissfully ignorant.”
And you thought all that stuff about “government re-education camps” was a paranoid fantasy. Or did you?
I just published a study that says 2 out of 3 gun grabbing liberals are just as full of sh!t as the other one!
See its easy to do. Took me all of 2 min. And i dont have a doctorate and i didnt have university backing.
Bless your hearts.
You’re supposed to convince some kale-brained financiers to fund your ‘study’, first.
Hey, don’t diss kale. Use iceberg lettuce instead in your metaphors. Yea, I know it doesn’t quite roll off the tongue but it took decades to straighten out the mess George H Bush made with broccoli.
But on topic, fear? Yea. So?
Fear: an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
You mean like the irrational fear liberals have of guns?
I bought my first handgun because it was required for my profession.
The rest came because the first was fun.
So much for fear.
😀
It sounds like the study’s authors posit that we don’t live in a dangerous or potentially dangerous world. I suspect that that sort of obliviousness to reality is a psychological problem.
I wonder…is there a word in the psychologist’s vocabulary that means the exact opposite of “paranoia”?
It’s interesting to me that all the anti-gun folks seem to be extremely paranoid of law-abiding people with guns and somehow have no fear whatsoever of the actually evildoers in society.
Naivety
Gullibility
Panglossism
Condition white.
Liberal. On any subject except guns.
The antis dichotomy of their world view is the worst mental condition damaging our country
Their leading argument is that “gu n violence” causes our streets to run with blood. It’s soooo bad that they claim it is the most prevalent, dangerous and out of control problem facing our country and the only solution is the forcible collection of all firea rms
On the other hand they shout from the roof that your chances of ever encountering a criminal act or terrorist is so marginal that you should never need to provide for your own defense. And anyone wanting to defend themselves is really just a scared little boy that’s compensating for their inferiority complex. And they feel that if all those people were taken away that the air would smell of butterfly and unicorn farts and everyone would live in one big happy commune
It is such a disconnect in logic, reality and basic facts that it borderlines on insanity
Excellent point. I’ve often wondered about that myself, does the anti-gun side not see the dichotomy?
No they view the hypothetical results as justification for the gap (provably more like a canyon) in logic. To them no guns means no death or crime, therefore remove guns remove death and crime
However we have numerous real world case studies, with populations numbering in the thousands up to tens of millions, suggesting that not only does their “logic” not hold true but in fact the exact opposite occurs. The less armed a population is (independent of guns, let’s just consider any reasonable weapon) the higher the innocent death toll and the more prevalent criminal activity (individuals or government agents) becomes
Doublethink. Orwell didn’t make it up.
My favorite instance of doublethink on this issue is “a civilian cannot possibly defend themselves with firearm because they lack sufficient training…if they seek out firearms training then they must be up to no-good.”
And this:
“The mere fact that someone wants to have a gun proves they shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.”
“Fear” is being used as a pejorative, and not by accident, of course. On the other hand, there is a well-respected book called, “The Gift of Fear.”
To extend their logic, the use of seat belts, staging of fire extinguishers, and even stairway handrails are merely symptomatic of “irrational fear.” Uh-huh.
Leftists believe that if you prepare for something you invite it. What a magical belief.
Yet that magically doesn’t apply to hard work and economics. Remember ‘You didn’t build that!’
So many examples. Heavy, graduated income tax doesn’t hurt the economy. Neither do fuel taxes. But taxes on cigarettes discourage smoking. Ignorant or evil. Could be both, but at least one must apply.
So, cargo-cultists, then.
Applies very well to their worship of pseudoscience, at least for the useful idiots and not, i.e., climate doom preachers who shout about rapidly rising ocean levels then buy multi-million dollar mansions on the coast at sea level (using money they made preaching catastrophe).
I thought the same thing and remembered the same book. There are many things to fear – fire, car accidents, criminals, but by addressing each – extinguisher, seat belt, gun, we don’t have a reason to be anxious.
My kids and I were going down an escalator the other day. Like a dumbass, I was standing there staring at my phone in my hand when the escalator came to a sudden, shuddering stop. I pitched forward, but I was able to reach out and grab the handrail to stop myself from falling.
Case in point. It IS a dangerous world.
But far less dangerous if you a) prepare for it and b) pay attention to your surroundings. Your experience was from the failure to adequately perform the second of those. And I’m not giving you a hard time, everyone has those moments, just pointing out the obvious.
You’re exactly right. Lack of situational awareness is one of the dangerous side effects of taking our safety for granted. And it can be easily coupled with abdication of personal responsibility. Had I fallen and seriously injured myself, I’m sure I could have very easily sued the mall and won big. Because it wouldn’t have been my fault for not paying attention and not having my hand on the supplied rail. It would have been mall’s fault for not providing a failsafe escalator. Sadly, that’s the way our world works…
Fear = paranoid = kook. Just another Leftist word game, like climate change “denial” which is to suggest that you acknowledge the truth but spitefully refuse to accept it. Or “collusion” which simply means to enter into a private agreement with the vague implication that it might be an unlawful agreement. If it was, then that’s “conspiracy” but none on the Left have yet accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. They’d rather let innuendo do their dirty work.
“Better educated”=”parrots our beliefs” Goodthink Macht Frei anyone? I didn’t and don’t buy guns because I am afraid, I buy them and get training so I don’t have to be. Well, that and guns are just cool.
And target practice is fun
About that “Better educated” thing. Educated as in brainwashed Leftist.
You know that Leftist theme where there is a rising tide of Leftists about to hit voting age that will keep them in power forever?
Saw an article recently that postulates it isn’t happening, and that there is evidence the opposite is happening. The Democrat party’s identity politics is really pissing off those who show up at a job everyday.
We’re in better political shape than we realize.
From the New York Times:
“A consistent theme is that the focus on white defections from the Democratic Party masks an even more threatening trend: declining turnout among key elements of the so-called Rising American Electorate — minority, young and single voters. Turnout among African-Americans, for example, fell by 7 points, from 66.6 percent in 2012 to 59.6 percent in 2016.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/opinion/the-democratic-party-is-in-worse-shape-than-you-thought.html?_r=0
“Saw an article recently that postulates it isn’t happening, and that there is evidence the opposite is happening”
Hmm where have I seen evidence to support that, something about a lady counting her chickens because the polls guaranteed an election and her party was going to sweep congress too. When was it, November?
They alienated their core, the heartland, by focusing on the large coastal cities. Their major problem coming up next election is their insistence on pounding the radical minority drum, running all the white kids and professors off a college campus with baseball bats doesn’t exactly guarantee you’ll get their vote forever.
I just assume that every one of your posts will violate Godwin’s Law in some way – I’m usually right.
But, on the whole, grounded emotions are usually valid. Fear itself has kept many a human alive since prehistory. Courage and stupidity really do operate on a continuum. Any political group that seeks to legislate away an emotion is an enemy of mankind, period.
Actually, a violation of Godwin’s Law would be a long heated discussion thread in which Hitler is not mentioned.
The primary corollary of Godwin’s Law is that once Hitler (or Nazis) is mentioned, the thread is over. That doesn’t happen much here, either.
Always remember that it is quite possible that there are valid parallels and comparisons between current events or ideologies and what the Nazis did and believed.
Mentioning Hitler or the nazis in a discussion of tangentially related topics doesn’t fulfill Godwin’s law
And isn’t it only fulfilled if someone calls (or compares) you hitler or the nazis in anger. Drawing parallels doesn’t end the thread
None of this should be a surprise to anyone paying attention. The “educated” elite look down their noses at the “common” folk. After all, they are just clinging to their guns and religion.
The US has divided along two lines and this article is just one more piece of evidence to support that idea. The coastal elites vs the fly over common/working folk.
Move along, nothing to see here.
“The US has divided along two lines and this article is just one more piece of evidence to support that idea.”
Yes, indeed. Take a look at this article I saw yesterday, about the USA splitting in two:
“We’re Not in a Civil War, but We Are Drifting Toward Divorce”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448385/americans-left-right-liberal-conservative-democrats-republicans-blue-red-states-cultural-segregate
In response to the article you linked Geoff: while California can certainly stand alone as a nation (assuming in can suddenly provide for its own defense), the New York, New Jersey, RI, Marlyland, Massachusetts corridor can’t make it alone, and we can’t allow a failed state to exist within our borders. We’d have to reabsorb them eventually, and we know that, so better not to let them leave. Cali is a whole other thing. The thing is, I cant see letting them leave the union because of the economic and security concerns. Also, we don’t want them to go nearly as bad as they seem to want to leave. I can imagine Ohio sending volunteers to bring the Californians to heal, what I can’t imagine is that California could find suitable volunteers to go fight for Californian independence.
Furthermore, while some of these places are majority leftist, they aren’t entirely leftist. How do Cali or New York resolve their population divide? Will the ‘up-staters’ most of whom would be apt to cleave to the union have to leave as refugees? Would the US allow this? Do the up-staters get to ‘leave’ with their land? Could either CA or NY allow or survive this disincorporation? What of corporations within these splinter states, what of their property rights. What about possessions of foreign interests and even governments? Might they not be inclined to put troops on the ground to protect their interests? Could CA or NY stop them? Then the big one, what of National Interests? Forests, monuments, government facilities and military bases…remember, it was the disposition of a military base that got the 1st US civil war going hot.
All this aside, what’s to stop China from invading and subjegating California? If CA has split from the union, I don’t see the US offering to help. I suppose under the Monroe Doctrine we might, whether Cali wanted it or not.
This forces the question of foreign policy and US national security. It doesn’t seem likely that US allies would be in a hurry to recognize Cali’s independence, or to establish trade (You know, since it’s likely we’d be telling them by back channel that we will destroy them economically if they do). So, who then does an independent California align and trade with? Given they would be a rogue state, not recognized as legitimate by most of the rest of the world, their friends in the international community would have to include places like N Korea and Iran. Is the US to stand by while silicone valley exports 1st rate missile guidance technology to these regimes?
Then there is the question of civil rights. Do we stand by and allow Cali to violate the civil rights of its citizens, our former countrymen? I mean, we are now…but for now the solutions are legislative and judicial. If Cali seceded, and could finally implement the removal of protection for the bearing of arms under the 2a, and of religious worship and speech under the 1a, would we let that stand?
It would seem to make tje most sense to ‘allow’ the secession, await the impermissible moment (likely a technology transfer to a state supporter of terrorism in a desperate live to stave off complete insovency) invade, retake the state, refuse to readmitt her to the union as a state, and administrate the place as a protectorate under federal rule. It’s actually an elegant solution to the Cali question, however Machiavellian it may be.
I think the bottom line is simply this: The US can’t abide an economically failing yet technologically 1st world country on its coast, which has no good prospects for foreign trade outside other rogue states, and no means by which to provide for its defense outside a similarly unacceptable liason. War would be inevitable, and would be easier and more legitimate if we did it before/during secession than after. There will be no divorce, at least not an amicable one.
California can not provide either its own water or electricity. There is no way it would stand as a nation.
The solution suggested by the article is the correct one. Return to the principles of federalism. There are some things the federal government should do. Outside of that, the feds should mind their own business. I think the proper limits are pretty well lined out in the Constitution, so long as one does not adopt the current view that the Commerce Clause means that anything that effects interstate commerce (i.e. just about everything ever) is within the legitimate reach of the feds.
Most of the controversial issues today are not specifically addressed in the Constitution. If these issues were left to the states, our national politics would be much less important.
Thinking the 14th Amendment ended federalism, as the federal government, with the complicity of the states, essentially repealed the 10th Amendment.
It definitely shifted things in that direction, but I believe the Wickard v. Filburn interpretation of the Commerce Clause did way more to end federalism than the 14A, at least for legislative purposes.
SCOTUS’s finding of so many rights in the 14A has definitely nationalized, and centered on themselves, a lot of issues that would be better left to the states. They’ve found the entire bill of rights (basically), the right to privacy, the right to contraception, the right to abortion, the right to gay sex, the right to gay marriage, and probably a ton of other stuff I’m forgetting. If they hadn’t done that, then most people wouldn’t care about them.
The founders feared the commerce clause. With it, the entire constitution can be nullified. It has come to the point where people can be forced to bring their production to market because refusing to engage in commerce is a violation of the commerce clause. SC said so.
Paranoia has been keeping animals alive for billions of years.
Reminds me of Moore’s (Intel) memorable motto: “He became known for his guiding motto: ‘Only the paranoid survive,’ and wrote a management book with the same title.”
And then there’s the famed shooting instructor who said, “Why would I be paranoid? I’ve got a gun.”
And then there is my favorite secret reality, having had the privilege of knowing a fair number of upper families well: They talk down guns, but they quietly own them. And, none of then have discarded their trap, skeet, and upland bird hunting guns with the beautifully figured stocks, though the guns may sit in safes or well-locked rooms.
Why would a bunch of Dutch and German academics need guns? They spend most of their free time hiding out in the safest places they can find, and they vote for evermore surveillance and police….because they think it’s a dangerous world….a vague impression they hold based on nothing but the ‘Ndragheta taking over north European highway restaurants, radical Islam killing people on especially festive holidays, all recalled in an intellectual collage overlaying the not-so-distant memory of a German Wehrmacht butchering Europe twice, only to be stopped by Stalin’s Red Army/NKVD butchering Eastern Europe.
But..but they’re worried about US guns? It’s the same old story. Looking at their native terrors is too scary, so they turn there gaze upon us. It’s more relaxing, obviously.
Part of the ‘German problem’ is that when they resisted paying the debt and accepting their punishment for having unjustly started the first world war, by starting the second world war, we gave them the Marshall plan instead of more appropriately taking anything resembling capital and industrial equipment, and leaving them a 3rd world state and protectorate of France. Of course the red menace made this undesirable, but perhaps the Germans could be told that we could still give them to the Russians if they really have a problem with us…
Actually, WW2 was a result of the rest of the nations trying to pauperize Germany. The Treaty of Versailles contained about 430 provisions, of which 429 were punitive toward Germany. (My numbers are from memory)
The US did not find the status of Germany after WW1 to be attractive. Reducing Germany entirely to rubble, bereft of anything but an agrarian economy, would not have been beneficial in the end. However, the Russians did prove that a harsh, unending occupation reduce the threat of a resurgence of German militarism. Who would be up for a permanent occupation, lasting centuries, to ensure Germany could not again become the conqueror of Europe?
People own guns for a lot of reasons and fear, justified or not, is only one of the reasons. The real reason that most people own guns is that shooting guns s fun. I bet the self defense justification is just an excuse.
Boy, that’s the damn truth. I’ve got an awful lot of guns with minimal or no defense value, even when I pretend my .308 might be needed to defend my house someday, maybe when both the 12 gauge and the 5.56 jam. I have both 3″ and 4″ 1911s, could defense require both? 9mm, .380, and .40 S&W, are those *ALL* required for defense?
I’m sure that by saying we need a better educated generation, psmag was referring to students who actually learn about the Constitution, moral law, and the natural right to self-preservation. Then gun owners’ fears of tyranny and crime would be lessened (but never eliminated – for we know from history and experience that men are prone to do evil).
So if an anti-freedom bigot ie, gun-control fanatic; is asked why they drive with their seat belt on, has car insurance, fire extinguishers, knows CPR and teaches their kids to stop, drop and roll, and to never talk to strangers; fire and flood insurance for their house and an alarm security system with alarms for fire and break in; along with life insurance if they die and a savings account in case they get sick, they will say ” I’m just being a mature responsible adult; after all, the world can be a dangerous and uncertain place”.
Then they are asked if they carry a firearm out side the house or have a firearm in their house to protect against a human predator. They say, “Oh no! I’m not paranoid or fearful, why would I need a gun?”
It truly is bizarre, how compartmentalized the world of the gun control fanatic can be, that they can hold two so diametrically opposed views, and not have their heads explode.
Exactly, I posted similar below, sorry I missed your comment.
The Leftist brain is a soup of diametrically opposed beliefs:
Cops are terrible racists who murder minorities/ only cops should have guns
Support the rights of women and gays/ support Islam
Rail against genocide/ believe that socialism is good
Rail against an oppressive gov/ demand bigger gov
Demand a higher minimum wage/ insist that we open the borders, which depresses the equilibrium cost of labor
etc, etc…
Let’s look at this from a purely factual position. If you live in certain areas of this country you have to deal with apex predators Bears,Mountain Lions.and Wolves. Many of these areas are high population centers and some are remote with very few people so you better have some fear and be prepared. Many places in this country have to deal with the most apex of predators. Other people. While Bears,Mountain Lions.and Wolves tend to attack and kill for food or when they feel Threatened. People hunt and kill for power,profit.and prejudice. Look at any big city in America. Chicago,Baltimore,Los Angeles. People hunt people. Sometimes the Tool is a gun. Sometimes a knife or car. Maybe even drugs. You better have a good dose of fear everyday. Not the paralyzing type of fear that makes you helpless. The kind of fear that makes you prepared to protect and defend you and yours. Are Handgun motivated by fear? Some may be. Some are motivated by the love of a sport. Some are motivated by the need to be prepared. Fear is an emotion that comes in many forms for good and ill. Everyone experiences fear. The question is how you react to it.
Anytime I see or hear this kind of la-dee-da claptrap, it only demonstrates that the authors of such views have lived a life so sheltered and free from difficulty that they’re utterly out of touch with the world that so many of us “lesser” folks experience on a daily basis.
Must be nice to live in a mental utopia so free of care, but it sure as hell isn’t a perspective based in reality.
So what if, hypothetically, you already have 5 or maybe 8 handg uns and you still want more? Is fear still the driving factor?
If the lefty gungrabbers had any brains they’d stop waving the bloody shirts every time there’s a shooting because they’re just driving sales and not convincing anyone to give up their gu ns.
Then why am I way more fearful when I’m not carrying than when I do carry?
Because you haven’t been ‘better-educated’.
“… the vague but deeply held perception that we live in a dangerous world.”
So, there’s never any danger? Some people on London Bridge might disagree.
Oh, wait. They can’t because they’re dead.
We may not have active re-education camps yet, but we do have passive re-education. They are called higher education, and they have been re-educating impressionable minds for decades. This is why they have been wanting it to be free for everyone, so they can “educate” them all.
Don’t kid yourself, Bruce. The “education” starts in kindergarten and continues for however long the bureaucrats and educrats can hang onto them. Look up the Prussian school system and you’ll understand. It is not just about guns, by any means. It’s about indoctrinating children to be submissive slaves instead of self owners.
Get the children OUT of the slave schools. Slaves are not “allowed” to have the means of self defense.
“Study” – If “studies” like this are all they’ve got, I think they’re gonna be disappointed with their reeducation program.
Remember the Jews feared the Nazi’s. Unfortunately by the time they realized their true goal. The guns were all confiscated.
Persuasion campaigs get so much harder when the other guys have facts and reasoning.
I’m not sure what they mean by “better educated.” My guess is to believe their anti 2nd amendment statistics. Many gun owners are both college educated and intelligent the two don’t go hand in hand. Intelligence is more important, but less liked by the manipulative elite.
When the world is safe and unicorns poop rainbows people will feel safe without a need to buy handguns. Until then all their manipulation will be worthless.
“I’m not sure what they mean by “better educated.” My guess is to believe their anti 2nd amendment statistics.”
That’s part of it, what they *really* mean is their way of thinking.
About pretty much everything. And they are very frustrated we don’t see things their way.
We have no interest whatsoever in their way of thinking, and theirs in ours. We have mutual contempt for each other, if not outright *hatred* of each other. You can’t have a healthy marriage based on mutual contempt.
We are now on the road to a national divorce, an ‘exit’ of each other’s political thinking. The only thing left is a splitting of marital assets, and the custody of the ‘kids’, the states.
It’s time to have a national conversation…
Herr Wolfgang needs to get out of the house once in awhile and see what’s going on in his own country.
Germans rush to buy illegal firearms and GRENADES to ‘protect themselves from migrants’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4189214/Germans-arming-illegal-guns-grenades.html
“is the vague but deeply held perception that we live in a dangerous world”
These people are so naive and disconnected from the real world, it’s amazing.
I bought my first privately owned hand gun for fun eg ipsc Had issued ones army etc before that
For defence there is pump action shotgun in the house and workshop. Guess I’m doing it wrong
It never fails to amaze that the thought process on display denies the entirety of animal evolution. Wishing it away does not make it so. Indoctrination through the school system guarantees that sociopathic predators will always have the drop on the indeed sheep-like masses. Total social control has to be the goal of those who view themselves as the Apex predators.
No one needs a fire extinguisher. I mean, compared to all the times people cook, fires are rare. Besides, the fire department will put out the fire for you, that’s what they’re trained to do. YOU might just make the fire worse, you know. And, to top it off, most fire extinguishers have CO2 in them, and we all know (thanks to Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio) how bad that stuff is, so just another reason for citizens to not have fire extinguishers.
If you give up your firearms due to the “logic” of the left, then you should also give up your fire extinguisher, and take your chances…or, you can be prepared.
This. 100% of fire extinguisher owners AFRAID of fire. Oh NOES!1!! Fear is bad is not an argument. Idealogical blinders = garbage science.
I use this analogy all the time. If I ask them about fire extinguishers and they say they don’t have one I tell them we’ll talk about guns later, but let’s get you a fire extinguisher now.
And I have screwdrivers because I fear things coming loose.
And I have towels because I fear being wet.
And I have fire extinguishers because I fear fire.
The people who write these kinds of “studies” need to be ridiculed. Loudly and publicly and often.
“Studies” are, themselves, a weapon. Generally funded by taxpayers through grants to fund preordained results, also by levied “fees” included in gun and ammunition sales, the goal is to simply make guns and ammo ever more expensive. The very idea of the levies is offensive, there is no benefit to those who are required to pay those fees, those were not the people who sought those levies. But none of the grabbers are interested in putting their own money into such crap, quite the contrary, they are setting up their own companies to collect those monies while pretending to conduct any manner of “research”. We ask 100 liberals the question “Do you believe madmen should be able to slaughter your neighbors with machine guns?”, then breathlessly release the shocking blockbuster “New study reveals 97% of Americans support stronger gun control!”, before collecting another few million dollars for their groundbreaking research.
One wonders how much of the support for “universal background checks” is based on the belief that there is some loophole that allows dealers to legally sell to convicted felons if the sale takes place at a gun show.
Wow. Talk about a study that throws a dart at the wall, then draws the bull’s eye around it. This study’s author should see a psychologist.
He reached the conclusions he was required to reach, and he made more money doing it than you’ll earn in your lifetime. Are you sure it is him who is nuts?
Just because you are paranoid; doesn’t mean some egg-headed university dweller who hates Americans isn’t out to de-fund and disarm you. I wonder sometimes what color the sky is in their world?
Out of respect for history I must say, the Nazis actually deregulated firearms with their waffengesetz, when compared to the previous laws administered by the Weimar Government. I know this doesn’t fit the usual Nazi gun graber narritive, but it is true. Compare the waffengesetz of 1928 (Weimar Republic) to the waffengesetz of 1938 (Nazi) and it is quite clear. Naturally this excluded Non-Germans from firearms ownership, chiefly the remainging 230ish thousand Jews remaining in Germany at 1939.
You’re right. They only took the fire arms from those they planned to enslave. The example of Nazis taking firearms is still valid, and I view anyone attempting to take our arms as a wannabe slaver.
Exactly right. The nazis are just like barry, hillary, and kapo bloomberg. They only want the people they approve of being armed.
From the same people who claim that their fear of gun owners somehow confers a right to restrict them….
Stupid Leftist studies are yet another reason of ….Why we have Trump.
Maybe I didn’t read the comments right, but I didn’t notice anyone bringing up the major disconnect here…
It’s fear of crime that drives gun buying, and it’s fear of crime that drives the anti-gunners.
Those two do not go together.
If crime is bad enough to make people want to protect themselves, why would anyone want to stop that? There’s no correlation between a lack of legal guns, and lack of crime, even crime committed with guns.
It seems to me that this new “study” undermines the anti’s case.
I find it disturbing that you throw out Scott Diseck like most of us will know who that is.
Is this Eurotrash projection? Don’t know about now, but when I was in Holland in ’72, Gronigen was known as the highest-crime city in the nation. Whose fear are they really analyzing?
“Change may require the coming of age of a new, better-indoctrinated generation.”
FIFY.
1. The world, even those “civilized” and “enlightened” urban/suburban enclaves in the Western world, is a potentially nasty place. Thinking otherwise means you haven’t been paying attention and are straight-up ignorant of human nature. Doesn’t mean you have to get neck deep in paranoia, either. It’s not a sheeper-threeper dichotomy.
2. I don’t think anyone with any sense thinks that a firearm is always the best way to protect yourself in this nasty world. But, a firearm gives you more options to manage those situations when harsh words and other tools are inadequate to the task.
Its “Lord Disick”
Studies show that your chances of getting robbed, raped, or murdered increase exponentially the closer you are to Democrats….
Sounds like this author would like to see some “re-thinking” camps.
Just had to fire my pistol yesterday to scare off a mountain lion. Yes, we live in a dangerous world, and no, not all of the dangers are human in origin.
You could attribute anything to fear if you try hard enough…
Drinking some water right now for fear of dehydration.
Ate some lunch earlier for fear of starvation.
Keep breathing for fear of suffocation.
Got laid last night for fear of blue balls.
That all seems pretty silly.
As for me, I carry a gun for the same reason that I wear a seatbelt: I recognize that the likelihood of needing either one to save my life is low, but I also recognize that if needed, there really is no good substitute for either one.
The problem is that people have eyes with which they see the world.
We say “Avoid stupid people and stupid places” but sometimes the stupid finds you. Just yesterday I parked my car, patronized a business, came back to my car and was going to leave when some guy, for reasons unknown to me attacked the car parked next to mine and tried to drag the female driver out of the vehicle. That precipitated the three men in this Jeep to get out and beat this guy’s ass. That caused his friends to jump in and now there’s a brawl going on. People are running in from different directions, some to join, some to break it up, ladies are screaming and my car is surrounded by foot traffic/UFC fighting so I ain’t goin’ nowhere.
So, I place my purchased items on the hood, pull out my phone and use my weak hand to call the cops while making sure no one behind me is about to tackle/attack me and that my sidearm stays secure.
Some lady, a grown ass woman, who’s clearly taken a couple shots to the head yells at me “Are you calling the cops?” I say yes and ask if she needs an ambulance. What does she do? She starts screaming at me that I’m a “faggot” and that she’s going to kick my ass (chuckle, OK lady you keep thinking that). The benefit of a small town on a Friday evening after work gets out is that by the time she says that three or four times, about what she needs to really psyche herself up and maybe force me to give her a taste test of the sidewalk, the cops are arriving on scene. And now they wanna talk to me… Damnit, my food’s getting cold.
So yeah, sometimes the stupid finds you. No one attacked me in this situation but someone easily could have because none of these people had a clue what was going on, who they were fighting or why.
The authors are not arguing that a fear based on a specific threat of harm is unreasonable or that gun ownership in such circumstances is paranoid. Instead, they argue that fear based on the generalized “vague but deeply held perception that we live in a dangerous world” is unreasonable since the risk of harm is so small. But what they fail to consider is that even if the risk of harm is small (in most but certainly not all places), the consequences of victimization by violent crime can be catastrophic. It is the same with fires or tornadoes; the individual risk is small, but the consequence is substantial. And this is why we insure against such things. A gun is insurance against the risk of violence. If insurance for your home, your cars, your health, etc is reasonable, even if the risk is small, then owning a gun for self defense in a world where dangers do exist, as demonstrated daily in the news and in the national crimes statistics.
“Change may require the coming of age of a new, better-educated generation.”
“We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?”
– Joseph Stalin
‘And you thought all that stuff about “government re-education camps” was a paranoid fantasy. Or did you?’
20 years ago I would have laughed at the idea. Now, not so much.
“So gun control advocates are hoping for a less fearful, “better educated” generation to support civilian disarmament. Educated by the anti-gun academics…”
Precisely. There are multiple means of challenging, and perhaps ending, the love affair with guns. Education systems may be the most potent and long-lasting. If enabling reasonable restrictions on gun owners is not possible (as reflected on gun blogs), then making the whole idea of gun ownership anathema is a reasonable response to implacable foes. Teaching children, and reinforcing in higher learning institutes, that violence, especially violence with a gun, is so horrible that only total rejection of any notion of guns being a positive (for law enforcement and military) is considered reasonable, desirable, or allowable is a viable avenue of advance. Consider how many “American values” of the mid-twentieth century are now considered harmful to society. The arc of history is on the side of social justice, and a sensible society.
One would hope that a “sensible” society is one that bases policies on actual, demonstrated effectiveness in achieving the desired goals. If so, a sensible society would reject most frequently-pushed gun restrictions based on their proven history of utter lack of demonstrable benefit in addressing the problems invoked when enacting them.
Those hoping to promote social justice might ponder whether it’s advisable for a political party that claims to support such goals to embrace a useless position that alienates a large portion society and reliably loses them votes, especially in the national arena.
“One would hope that a “sensible” society is one that bases policies on actual, demonstrated effectiveness in achieving the desired goals. ”
Talking about goals, let us discuss how effective 300 million guns are at preventing assaults (of whatever kind). My measure would be that 300 million guns (let’s say that half the adult population has a gun, and the other half are the aggressors), two per person for the non-aggressor population. The fact that all the potential victims are armed should deter the aggressor half. Anything less than the totality of non-aggressors being armed is even more ineffective as deterrent. So, 300 million guns are not deterring attacks. If it were otherwise, I would be a raving supporter of civilian armament.
As to the goals of those supporting sensible, rational distribution of firearms, our goals are increasing being met. Consider the number of court wins, consider the education system, consider the marginalizing of gun owners as productive or even desirable members of the body politic.
The latest and best polls give gun owners an approximate 50-50 split on whether guns should be heavily regulated. (a count that is within the margin of error is not proof that America is becoming more gun friendly. All of which means gun sense goals are being met. Fortunately, gun owner activists (“absolutists?”) have short attention spans, and always play the short field.
“Talking about goals, let us discuss how effective 300 million guns are at preventing assaults (of whatever kind). My measure would be that 300 million guns (let’s say that half the adult population has a gun, and the other half are the aggressors), two per person for the non-aggressor population. The fact that all the potential victims are armed should deter the aggressor half. Anything less than the totality of non-aggressors being armed is even more ineffective as deterrent. So, 300 million guns are not deterring attacks. If it were otherwise, I would be a raving supporter of civilian armament.”
I’ve read this paragraph half a dozen times and it still makes zero sense. You have half the population with a gun, the other half as aggressors, and then… two guns per non-aggressor population? Who are these third “half” of the population? Wait, is this Yogi Berra?
Sorry for the confusion. What I intended was to lower the number of non-aggressor persons who actually had one or more of the 300 million guns (because we cannot determine actually how many guns are in the hands of however many people). If half the population wants absolute freedom to have a gun, and the other half not, the the half that is “non-aggressor” is split, meaning all the “non-aggressors” do not have, or carry a firearm. The upshot is that even with 300 million firearms allocated only to “non-aggressors”, the deterrence fails.
You articulate well but I am puzzled by your logic. There maybe 300 million guns in the U.S. but there are not 300 million gun owners. It’s like coin collecting some have a few some have hundreds. Of course having a gun or even using a gun cannot deter ALL attacks. It is an insurance policy plain and simple.
We live in a world of haves and have-nots where bigger is better and money is God. No current education system will ever change that. It really comes down to the will of an entire people or species if you prefer. We are currently bordering on a civil war with vagina costumed freaks on one side and polymer pistol advocates on the other. I’m no absolutist but I would never give up my guns just because the “statistics” say they aren’t necessary. I’ve already chosen my side.
“There maybe 300 million guns in the U.S. but there are not 300 million gun owners.”
A point I botched in the original commentary. There are not enough gun wielders to discourage armed assaults. It is often posited here that the “bad guys” do not fear their intended victims because few are armed. And the corollary, “if more people were armed, ‘bad guys’ would think twice about random victims.”
If discouraging attacks because citizens are armed is a goal, the effort is a failure. Given the 50-50 split on support/opposition to guns, the goal (deterrence) will never be met.
Taking the long way round, the idea that unrestricted gun ownership and possession would deter attack (cause attackers to “think twice”) is not a viable argument. “More guns equals more safety” can never be made true. If law enforcement cannot make neighborhoods safe, then hire more law enforcement. Hire enough to make a real difference, and create an environment where attackers are assured police can quickly come to the defense of the targeted individuals. America always wants to lead, lead with this. Success could be used to shame other nations into doing the same.
“The latest and best polls give gun owners an approximate 50-50 split on whether guns should be heavily regulated.”
Link them up, please.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/cnn-gun-poll/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/views-gun-control-polling-summary-poll/story?id=36096424
http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/public-views-about-guns/#total
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/09/a-public-opinion-trend-that-matters-priorities-for-gun-policy/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-with-obama-that-more-gun-buyers-should-get-background-checks/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control
http://time.com/4173116/gun-control-barack-obama-polls/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/gun-control-support-orlando-224559
Thanks! Skimming a few from more reputable-looking sources (Pew, 538, Politico), the results hardly seem to support the claims that gun owners support guns being “heavily regulated”, and seem to weigh against the notion that the trend is in favor of greater restrictions unless the poll is taken shortly after some heavily publicized mass shooting. There appears to be broad support for more background checks, if that meets one’s definition of “heavily regulated”. Also broad support for prohibiting guns to convicted felons and the mentally disabled (apparently among people who, like Sec. Clinton and the DNC, are not aware that such people are already prohibited from gun ownership), and support for banning those on the terrorism watch list.
Point is none of the acknowledged polls indicate a solid majority supporting “gun rights”. Most polls show the split to be within the margin of error.
My underlying comment is that we cannot claim that more people having more guns is working toward the “goal” of making bad guys think twice about assaulting other people. Maybe, maybe, if we had laws that mandated everyone over 18 carry a firearm for personal protection…and maybe, maybe if there was overwhelming advertising of that fact, then we could see and claim that more people with more guns indeed makes us safer.
“Consider the number of court wins, consider the education system, consider the marginalizing of gun owners as productive or even desirable members of the body politic.”
– But, apparently, don’t consider the nationwide loosening of state restrictions on concealed and open carry, along with the obvious lack of the “Wild West” bloodshed in the streets that was predicted by opponents.
-And, don’t consider the number of liberals/leftists/progressives who, with Pres. Trump in office, seem to realize that trusting the government for one’s protection may not be the wisest option.
“Gun ownership has traditionally been associated with the right wing in America but the election of Donald Trump has prompted some left-wingers to join gun clubs – and even start preparing for the collapse of society.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345
If risk of harm in a country awash with guns is so small that that gun owners are irrational for wanting a gun for protection then why are these enlightened and educated people working so hard to take the guns away from the gun owners?
Irrational fear is irrational fear. By the numbers the US has never been more safe even with all the guns and by the numbers gun owners are far less likely to commit a crime than non gun owners. So how’s about the enlightened and educated get over their irrational fear and leave me the hell alone?
If you are a Neo-Marxist who wants to impose collectivist authoritarianism on a (nominally) free people by any means necessary, your fear of an armed population is perfectly rational.
+1
Gun grabbers are motivated by satans anal induced roid rage.
“So the German psychologist behind this study — not that there’s anything wrong with being German”
Maybe. And yet I get real nervous whenever a German tells me that I don’t need a gun.
Yes, speaking of historical stereotypes, how ironic that in the US the ethnic group that was the major focus of the Nazis genocidal program are now vastly over represented among those who advocate for civilian disarmament in order to strengthen the State. Who would have guessed ?
Not me.
Politically speaking , you are to Jews what I am to atheists. An anomoly.
In relation to our demographic were are so rare as to be almost insignificant. Both groups are overwhelmingly left wing.
My aunt is both Jewish ( Frankel ) and an atheist. She is a retired from academia. In the groovy 60’s she and my uncle were members of VISTA. They faithfully vote for progressives.
The atheist forums I used to visit are populated by members who unapologetically embrace marxism.
As someone else here wisely stated:
“Exceptions only prove exceptions”
Sorry, meant “anomaly”.
well.. the liberal media and anti-gunners keeps telling me that 30,000 people are killed by gun violence each year. I had to get me one in case it happens to me.
amirite?
Quite possibly to prevent it happening to you.
Jeez! Can’t I buy a handgun just because it’s cool?
Bonus question: How many German psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Charlie
Socialist’s equate peeing in their pants with fear. I guess next thing they’ll be saying I have a 20″ blade machete out of fear. I have a dog out of fear, I lock my house out of fear. As we say in Texas, “I’ll tell you whut….” I don’t give a flying ring tail red rat’s butt what socialist’s think.
“So… you carry a gun, eh?”
“Yep.”
“How come. I mean… what are you afraid of?”
“I’m not afraid of anything. I carry a gun.”
Awesome. ?
Anti-Handgun Owners Are Motivated By Fake Paranoid Fear of Handgun Owners their own
Naiveté.
i am definetly on the left side of govenment, but i own a hangun and i support the 2nd amendment
since the left is all about big government, surrendering personal responsibility for anything, how do you stay comfortable as a “lefty”? should you be rethinking some things?
Yes, indeed “the strongest motivation to buy handguns is the vague but deeply held perception that we live in a dangerous world,”
But is wasn’t the thief, murder or rapist that the 2nd was written for… IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT – that our fore fathers had just spent their lives fighting against…
A GOVERNMENT that had no problem taking life, property and labor for its own without any regard… But, say, since Kelo v. City of New London, ” the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
They have taken your land… all that’s left is life & labor Given, the left wants to disarm and politicize the police & judicial system, how far are they from taking your life & labor…
So, Yes, it is a dangerous world…
New study: All studies are heavily influenced by author bias or funding interest bias, and the results/findings of all studies are determined prior to the study being performed.
So people who buy handguns are driven by fear, and fear is a bad thing. Antis call us irrational for believing that the world is a dangerous place. Riddle me this, o anti-gun scholar: what is that drives people like you to use the government to disarm your law abiding neighbors? You constantly push statistics like the number of people killed with guns and false claims such as a gun in the home is more likely to kill a resident than an intruder. Your side creates false statistics that demonize guns and twist the truth about the nature of “gun violence” in this country. Your side creates ad campaigns that seek to play on peoples’ fears of being shot by a neighbor, an ex-lover, some guy you flipped off in traffic, or even your own child. So it would seem to me that you are as driven by fear as the rest of us, if not more so. And it seems that your side has conceded that world is dangerous, or else none of these situations would exist. So here’s the thing: owning the means of self defense is a rational response to a dangerous world where dangerous people exist. Believing that the government can somehow take the guns away from all the bad people and protect us all is a completely irrational response.
“Believing that the government can somehow take the guns away from all the bad people and protect us all is a completely irrational response.”
Only irrational if you take them at their word regarding their goals and intentions.
That is the only known photo which shows Goebbels laughing out loud. Usually that a-hole looked rather dour.
Fear?
I got my first gun (shotgun) to go hunting with dad when I was a kid.
I got other guns because I like the sound of a lead bullet vs a handful of my own feces hitting a steel plate. And now I can bite my fingernails again.
I ain’t skeered.
Academic studies are so much easier when you reach a conclusion and then collect data that confirms the desired result.
These people are entirely driven by fear. Do they not realize this? They propose, support, call for, and dream of gun control because they are afraid of the vague notion that someone out there might do something bad with a gun.
You could do all kind of tit for tat on why their fear isn’t fear or is a different kind of fear or whatever. But the long and short of it is they are just being hypocrites. They refuse to apply their own logic to their own actions. Because they’re right. Right?
I think a great example of the so-called fear that drives people is best driven home by an experience my dear wife just had. She’s not a gun person. She is from the pacific northwest and very much on the left side of the moderate spectrum. But just the other day a lady in her mom group on facebook had a run in with her estranged husband. She caught him cheating on her again. Multiple times. So she left him. And since then he has become increasingly unhinged. To the point that the other day he was pounding on her parents door, where she and her kids are living and screaming that he had a gun and that he was going to kill himself if she didn’t let him in. This could easily turn from I’ll kill me to I’ll kill you. But of course the cops didn’t show up for hours and hours even in a relatively small town with an active police force and a low coverage area.
So now I think she finally gets it. She has heard me say over and over it’s up to you to defend yourself. But now that she has seen that fear as close as I ever hope she will, she gets it. The cops can’t always protect you. Sometimes they can’t. Sometimes they won’t.
I don’t know if this will change things in our marriage regarding our truce on guns and the scarcity thereof. But I do know she sees a little clearer that this world can be a very dangerous place. Which isn’t really a fear thing. It’s just a fact.
It is good to point out how well the cops protected the people at Pulse.
it still impresses me how rich white college professors who live in gated communities or in a college campus house think it strange that people who live everywhere else think they needed guns, because they really do have gangs looking to assault them and steal their possessions.
By “better educated” they mean brainwashed into thinking it ISN’T a dangerous world in spite of all the constant harping by the media about how dangerous it is.
In other words, they want a world of passive schizophrenics.
You mean pretty much the same thing for them to buy fire extinguishers.