Gun Ownership and Fear

MaverickNH

NES Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
8,221
Likes
7,804
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0
Gun ownership and fear

“In this paper, we examine the link between gun ownership and fear. We ask whether gun owners are more or less afraid than people who do not own guns...The symptom perspective argues that gun ownership is a behavioral expression of fear, that gun owners need guns to protect themselves because they are irrational cowards. Although binary logistic regression models provided minimal support for this idea, there was some evidence to suggest that the odds of gun ownership are higher for people who report being afraid of being victimized by a random/mass shooting. The palliative perspective claims that gun ownership mitigates fear, that owning a powerful weapon is somehow soothing to individuals and their families. Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression models suggest that people who own guns tend to report lower levels of phobias and victimization fears than people who do not own guns...people who own guns are less likely to report fears associated with animals (bugs, snakes, dogs, or any other animal/insect), heights (like balconies, bridges, or roofs), zombies, and being mugged.”

I have a new-found empathy for non-gun owners, who go to bed fearing zombies, wishing they had a zombie-gun but too afraid to buy one.
 
This is actually fascinating, although the way that is written makes it obvious whomever wrote the paper probably doesn't spend much time around firearms. It's also not very subtle in its criticism, using words like 'coward' in the hypothesis.

It's extremely sloppy, from a research perspective. What were the ages, income levels, residential and work locations, etc? So many factors play a part.

I just got my LTC recently (only took 8 weeks in my MA town, although they did play 'keep away' for a week). I did it for a few reasons (fun, sport, hobby), but not fear. I've lived my entire life to this point without a gun, I don't imagine having one now is the panacea for all my fears. I don't carry daily, for example (verboten at work, no reason to when I run to the market). I find it doesn't do much except hang a 2-pound weight from my belt.

What I *have* found, however, is that now I feel secure for having the option. I can say, "*if*, *then*". If there is a situation, then I have an option. And that sense of having a strong, powerful, option available lends to a feeling of security.

Having said that- and this next part is going to be wildly unpopular among some gun owners- it's an illusion. None of it is more than fantasy until you point that firearm at another human being and pull the trigger, potentially ending their life.

Cue the, "I could do it, no problem" commentaries, or the ad hominem attacks. But really... ending a life is not summed up in "he was trespassing," or "if it is him or me, it's going to be him." That's theory. It's bluster. What if it's a kid or kids who just took a wrong turn in life? Boom, it's over? I don't think so.

Some gun owners compensate by training. Train to respond instinctively. Draw and fire in one motion, remove the brain from it. Which is what we train and military to do. This adds to the feeling of power, fearlessness.

And then our police officers and military do the thing they are trained to do. But when they have to take a life, you figure they go home and have a beer? Sure, some, but that's what psychopaths do. A human being will be terrified, guilt-wracked, angry that it came to that. They will be haunted. Suicide rates among law enforcement and military personnel is frighteningly higher than the general baseline. Only two types of people truly believe they can take a life: those who are sociopaths and have no conscience; and those who are wise enough to know that *should* they ever have to take a life, their own lives will forever an irrevocably be altered. Everyone else... is full of Grade A fertilizer.

I guess what I am saying is... I agree owning a gun can be palliative. But that has more to do with the false sense of security having a firearm provides. And *that* is a function of our culture. Everyone is a cowboy. I was demonstrating safe handling to my wife the other day, and we were discussing why I keep all mine unloaded and locked away at home. I asked her a simple question. "Can you end a life? Not, 'can you shoot a bad guy'. Can you put a massive ball of lead into someone and watch them gasp and leak all over the floor until they die? Because if not, all you are doing is giving an assailant another tool to shove up your ass."

The look on her face is why I keep my firearms locked up. She *feels* safer with a gun in the house, even though she is incapable of using them. Not sure how to turn that into a study.
 
Just skimmed the abstract and I love what they contrast the US Constitution with...

Americans can be divided into two groups: those who own guns and those who do not. Many people who own guns adhere to a culture that is supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Republican Party, and the United States Constitution. Many people who do not own guns follow a culture that is driven by social organizations such as Everytown for Gun Safety, social movements like #NeverAgain, and the Democratic Party.
 
This is actually fascinating, although the way that is written makes it obvious whomever wrote the paper probably doesn't spend much time around firearms. It's also not very subtle in its criticism, using words like 'coward' in the hypothesis.

It's extremely sloppy, from a research perspective. What were the ages, income levels, residential and work locations, etc? So many factors play a part.

I just got my LTC recently (only took 8 weeks in my MA town, although they did play 'keep away' for a week). I did it for a few reasons (fun, sport, hobby), but not fear. I've lived my entire life to this point without a gun, I don't imagine having one now is the panacea for all my fears. I don't carry daily, for example (verboten at work, no reason to when I run to the market). I find it doesn't do much except hang a 2-pound weight from my belt.

What I *have* found, however, is that now I feel secure for having the option. I can say, "*if*, *then*". If there is a situation, then I have an option. And that sense of having a strong, powerful, option available lends to a feeling of security.

Having said that- and this next part is going to be wildly unpopular among some gun owners- it's an illusion. None of it is more than fantasy until you point that firearm at another human being and pull the trigger, potentially ending their life.

Cue the, "I could do it, no problem" commentaries, or the ad hominem attacks. But really... ending a life is not summed up in "he was trespassing," or "if it is him or me, it's going to be him." That's theory. It's bluster. What if it's a kid or kids who just took a wrong turn in life? Boom, it's over? I don't think so.

Some gun owners compensate by training. Train to respond instinctively. Draw and fire in one motion, remove the brain from it. Which is what we train and military to do. This adds to the feeling of power, fearlessness.

And then our police officers and military do the thing they are trained to do. But when they have to take a life, you figure they go home and have a beer? Sure, some, but that's what psychopaths do. A human being will be terrified, guilt-wracked, angry that it came to that. They will be haunted. Suicide rates among law enforcement and military personnel is frighteningly higher than the general baseline. Only two types of people truly believe they can take a life: those who are sociopaths and have no conscience; and those who are wise enough to know that *should* they ever have to take a life, their own lives will forever an irrevocably be altered. Everyone else... is full of Grade A fertilizer.

I guess what I am saying is... I agree owning a gun can be palliative. But that has more to do with the false sense of security having a firearm provides. And *that* is a function of our culture. Everyone is a cowboy. I was demonstrating safe handling to my wife the other day, and we were discussing why I keep all mine unloaded and locked away at home. I asked her a simple question. "Can you end a life? Not, 'can you shoot a bad guy'. Can you put a massive ball of lead into someone and watch them gasp and leak all over the floor until they die? Because if not, all you are doing is giving an assailant another tool to shove up your ass."

The look on her face is why I keep my firearms locked up. She *feels* safer with a gun in the house, even though she is incapable of using them. Not sure how to turn that into a study.

Clearly you need to do more research. The military is not trained to just instinctively fire without using the brain. My 25 years in uniform and countless hours of "escalation of force" training tells me otherwise.

You should do much....much...much more research before you blither on like an ignorant fool.
 
...or we could just like cool shit at the intersection of engineering, chemistry and physics with a dash of history, personal empowerment and independence. Oh, and eating yummy animals we couldn't otherwise capture might be part of it.
 
Just another propaganda piece.

The real difference between people who own guns and people who don't is RESPONSIBLE and IRRESPONSIBLE.

Victims of violent crime prove this point with extreme regularity.
 
I'm a fearful gun owner. Fearful of stupid politicians. Fearful of a government gone wild. Fearful that my rights will be eroded and taken away.

It's sort of like I'm afraid of drowning so I take swimming lessons. I don't just hope I never touch water.
 
I think the researchers took Everytown/Joyce Foundation money (through laundered sources to make it look purely academic, of course) hoping to find that gun owners were wracked by fears and phobias overall, supporting the cowards braced by guns hypothesis. But then the data said otherwise and they had to spin it to satisfy the anti-gun agenda of their academic colleagues and funding sources.

They grabbed the only shred to cling to - “a good guy with a gun stops a bad gun with a gun” - and ran with that assumed falsehood as the focus of their anti-gun and anti-gun owner thesis: we have guns thinking we can protect ourselves and others from mass killings. If you reject the observations that 95%+ mass killings occur in gun-free zones, that no school shootings have happened in the 20+ states where teachers/staff can be armed, that armed citizens use guns to stop crime hundreds of thousands of times yearly - then guns have no benefit.

And did they really call gun owners “sick f*ckers” and “sh*tty people” in an academic journal? Those must be liberal anti-gunner code phrases for Google.
 
Powerful? Lmao a car is more powerful weapon vs most small arms. Call me up when we can get an AT4 at the gun shop....

-Mike
 
Clearly you need to do more research. The military is not trained to just instinctively fire without using the brain. My 25 years in uniform and countless hours of "escalation of force" training tells me otherwise.

You should do much....much...much more research before you blither on like an ignorant fool.

*Yawn*

I didn't say they don't teach mil to shoot. Or that they don't teach target acquisition. I never said the military or LE are stupid machines.

What I said was that they are trained to act instinctively. Without stopping and contemplatimg the consequences of ending a life.

Maybe you don't see it that way. That's sort of on you. I have many former military friends, and some are truly haunted by what they had to do. But they did it, thanks to training. Rote training that drilled the fear and contemplation out.
 
...or we could just like cool shit at the intersection of engineering, chemistry and physics with a dash of history, personal empowerment and independence. Oh, and eating yummy animals we couldn't otherwise capture might be part of it.

I love this! Yes! Let's just geek out over guns and stop pretending they make us something we aren't.
 
Just another propaganda piece.

The real difference between people who own guns and people who don't is RESPONSIBLE and IRRESPONSIBLE.

Victims of violent crime prove this point with extreme regularity.

Eh. So if you don't own a gun you are irresponsible? That's an extreme stretch.

This response perfectly encapsulates one of the issues: A gun does not confer unto you any special rank. No special decoder ring. You are exactly who you were before. Which isn't always a good thing. If you would have a problem ending a life (and you should), you should think long amd hard about what it means to carry a gun. If the thought doesn't bother you, you *shouldn't* have a gun. That is probably also wildly unpopular, but this isn't Fallujah.
 
*Yawn*

I didn't say they don't teach mil to shoot. Or that they don't teach target acquisition. I never said the military or LE are stupid machines.

What I said was that they are trained to act instinctively. Without stopping and contemplatimg the consequences of ending a life.

Maybe you don't see it that way. That's sort of on you. I have many former military friends, and some are truly haunted by what they had to do. But they did it, thanks to training. Rote training that drilled the fear and contemplation out.
Oh wow....I didn't realize you have former military friends. I'm sorry I interrupted your expert opinion on this matter.

By the way.....escalation of force has nothing to do with target acquisition....but I'll step aside now and let you continue with your expertise in educating all of us....especially me because obviously my 2 plus years in combat theaters doesn't mean anything in this discussion.....
 
I'm a fearful gun owner. Fearful of stupid politicians. Fearful of a government gone wild. Fearful that my rights will be eroded and taken away.

It's sort of like I'm afraid of drowning so I take swimming lessons. I don't just hope I never touch water.

Our rights are eroded on a daily basis. 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments, constantly being eroded. Does the average gun owner do *anything* about those? Do we, as a collective, spring to action as nimbly when someone is busted for saying, "f*** the police"?

No, we don't. So pardon me for not really putting a ton of stock in the gubmint fear mongering.

I love guns. Love the tech, the engineering, the history. I love to shoot. But some people pretend the 2nd is a sacred cow. It isn't, and whether you want it to or not, it *will* change, just as everything else has. And, as with everything else, you can modify your stance to be mostly in line, or you can cross your arms and say, "I won't change." That is your right. The right to be unchanging.

But seriously... if the government wants the guns, sooner or later they will have them. Owning a gun and being ready for armed conflict will only hasten that. With Republicans folding on the issue and every goddamn shit with a chip on his shoulder spraying crowds with bullets, you are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
 
This is the tactic used by the super anti-gun Libs at the Globe before I was banned. If you carry a gun you're a coward because you can't defend yourself with out it and you have a fear of other people. It's typical reverse logic for idiots. The anti's are "brave" because they're unarmed but us "gun nuts" are girly men who fear the unknown. Pure idiotic logic out of desperation and lack of knowledge.
 
*Yawn*

I didn't say they don't teach mil to shoot. Or that they don't teach target acquisition. I never said the military or LE are stupid machines.

What I said was that they are trained to act instinctively. Without stopping and contemplatimg the consequences of ending a life.

Maybe you don't see it that way. That's sort of on you. I have many former military friends, and some are truly haunted by what they had to do. But they did it, thanks to training. Rote training that drilled the fear and contemplation out.

I was going to disagree with this, but then I saw that you have many Navy Seal friends, so I defer to you as an SME.
 
Powerful? Lmao a car is more powerful weapon vs most small arms. Call me up when we can get an AT4 at the gun shop....

-Mike
****
Correct, I tell the anti's I'm much more likely to be killed by a texting, tail gating Ma**h*** while riding my Beemer than I am by a maniac w/a "Assault Weapon".
 
This is the tactic used by the super anti-gun Libs at the Globe before I was banned. If you carry a gun you're a coward because you can't defend yourself with out it and you have a fear of other people. It's typical reverse logic for idiots. The anti's are "brave" because they're unarmed but us "gun nuts" are girly men who fear the unknown. Pure idiotic logic out of desperation and lack of knowledge.

I didn't even get that from skimming the... haha... 'study', but of course you are right.

On the other hand... the liberals stoop to calling pro-2a people *names*... and are gaining traction. Say what you will about the methods, but they are effective.
 
I was going to disagree with this, but then I saw that you have many Navy Seal friends, so I defer to you as an SME.
I'll bet my monthly VA disability check I know a little more about mil training and what combat can do to a person than he does.
 
*Yawn*

I didn't say they don't teach mil to shoot. Or that they don't teach target acquisition. I never said the military or LE are stupid machines.

What I said was that they are trained to act instinctively. Without stopping and contemplatimg the consequences of ending a life.

Maybe you don't see it that way. That's sort of on you. I have many former military friends, and some are truly haunted by what they had to do. But they did it, thanks to training. Rote training that drilled the fear and contemplation out.
*****
Our JOB was to end a life, the life of the enemy who was trying to kill us. Apples and Oranges between Military Combat training and civilian self defense training w/a firearm.
 
*****
Our JOB was to end a life, the life of the enemy who was trying to kill us. Apples and Oranges between Military Combat training and civilian self defense training w/a firearm.
This

And from my 2 years in combat theater we had an open roe only one time for about 3 days in April of 2004. Other than that it was escalation of force HAD to be used. You didnt just get to ventilate someone because you "felt" they were a threat......

As far as "contemplating" what taking a life will do.....sure training helps become more lethal and overcome fear. But it doesn't get rid of fear altogether. I've had soldiers that I thought were way below standard before combat that were absolutely warriors when lead started flying ....and Ive had soldiers that I thought were the most squared away need a little "motivation" to get the job done when it got to that time.
 
****
Correct, I tell the anti's I'm much more likely to be killed by a texting, tail gating Ma**h*** while riding my Beemer than I am by a maniac w/a "Assault Weapon".

I do that too. Buuut, as I also have said in conversation, I also understand the distinct differences between a cellphone, a car, and a gun.

Cars and phones were designed for transportation and communication, respectively. That they cause death and destruction is secondary to their intended function. Thus, all conversation that stems from that starts with how to prevent their *unintended* function.

Guns really- if we are being honest- designed to hurt people and animals. That is the sum total of their original intended function. You can target shoot all day, but JM Browning designed killing machines. If you disagree, good for you. Doesn't change fact.

Every conversation started about guns needs to include an acknowledgement from us that, yes, guns are tools designed for a specific purpose. But that doesn't mean they cannot be used for something else, just antis need to acknowledge that a tool of transportation can also be used for something else.

You don't have to agree with me, obviously. And for those attempting to insult me in other posts... what are you, 12? Grow up. Reality exists whether you want it to or not. We are on the shitty side of a historical conversation WE ARE LOSING.

Being an a**h*** about it just makes one a losing a**h***. We sound like a**h***s when we look at a shooting and say, "cars kill more people." Who cares? Who. The hell. Cares. There are also more cars in motion on a daily basis than guns. And cars cannot go everywhere. You don't want to get hit by a car? Stay away from roads. Don't want to die while texting? Stop texting.

Don't want to die by gunfire? Kind of beyond your control. Statistically far less likely to happen, but scarier when it does, because you can do everything right and some shit with a problem can end it all for you. THAT is what people fear. Is that really so difficult to understand and empathize with?
 
I just got my LTC recently (only took 8 weeks in my MA town, although they did play 'keep away' for a week). I did it for a few reasons (fun, sport, hobby), but not fear. I've lived my entire life to this point without a gun, I don't imagine having one now is the panacea for all my fears. I don't carry daily, for example (verboten at work, no reason to when I run to the market). I find it doesn't do much except hang a 2-pound weight from my belt.

Not carrying at work if it's prohibited is understandable. "... no reason to when I run to the market" is another story. Either you carry (when you can) or you don't, if you need a reason to carry to certain places I'd suggest re-thinking carrying or the places you go to. Carrying should be a habit not a needs based decision every time you leave the house. I carry at work so for me it's more a matter of the occasional times when I can't carry but those are few and far between. It does take some time to get comfortable carrying regularly but in the long run you'll probably end up either carrying whenever you can (when you're not working) or you won't carry at all. The not carrying at work thing is often the difference between guys who carry regularly and those who don't.
 
I do that too. Buuut, as I also have said in conversation, I also understand the distinct differences between a cellphone, a car, and a gun.

Cars and phones were designed for transportation and communication, respectively. That they cause death and destruction is secondary to their intended function. Thus, all conversation that stems from that starts with how to prevent their *unintended* function.

Guns really- if we are being honest- designed to hurt people and animals. That is the sum total of their original intended function. You can target shoot all day, but JM Browning designed killing machines. If you disagree, good for you. Doesn't change fact.

Every conversation started about guns needs to include an acknowledgement from us that, yes, guns are tools designed for a specific purpose. But that doesn't mean they cannot be used for something else, just antis need to acknowledge that a tool of transportation can also be used for something else.

You don't have to agree with me, obviously. And for those attempting to insult me in other posts... what are you, 12? Grow up. Reality exists whether you want it to or not. We are on the shitty side of a historical conversation WE ARE LOSING.

Being an a**h*** about it just makes one a losing a**h***. We sound like a**h***s when we look at a shooting and say, "cars kill more people." Who cares? Who. The hell. Cares. There are also more cars in motion on a daily basis than guns. And cars cannot go everywhere. You don't want to get hit by a car? Stay away from roads. Don't want to die while texting? Stop texting.

Don't want to die by gunfire? Kind of beyond your control. Statistically far less likely to happen, but scarier when it does, because you can do everything right and some shit with a problem can end it all for you. THAT is what people fear. Is that really so difficult to understand and empathize with?
Now your confusing me.

If you could answer this we can move on in this conversation

Do you believe every American has the right to defend him or herself with a fire arm if they feel that's what's necessary?

You've got some comments In your post that have me believing you don't believe that's true. Just trying to clear that up.
 
This

And from my 2 years in combat theater we had an open roe only one time for about 3 days in April of 2004. Other than that it was escalation of force HAD to be used. You didnt just get to ventilate someone because you "felt" they were a threat......

As far as "contemplating" what taking a life will do.....sure training helps become more lethal and overcome fear. But it doesn't get rid of fear altogether. I've had soldiers that I thought were way below standard before combat that were absolutely warriors when lead started flying ....and Ive had soldiers that I thought were the most squared away need a little "motivation" to get the job done when it got to that time.

Human beings are still human. Taking a life is a serious, and final, act. I imagine a good crowd from both the camps you describe will probably have nightmares for the rest of their lives.

I guess that's my point. Guns are fun. Yay. Guns are cool. YAY!

But they have a long, dark, awful history. We could, with all respect, at least acknowledge that.
 
Back
Top Bottom