Why many women and urban males don't understand guns

[mack]

Ever wonder why most women and most urban males don't like or have no use for guns?

If you grant that the above supposition is true then the answers to the question are central to maintaining and regaining the right to keep and bear arms.

A few of my thoughts, (I realize that some of the following are generalizations and that individuals in a given population will vary):

1. People who have no first hand experience with firearms are afraid of them because they can be dangerous if mishandled or misused. Women and urban males are less likely to have first hand experience with guns. People fear what they do not understand.

Solution - take people shooting every chance you get - instead of arguing or putting down a co-worker, acquaintance, or family member offer to take them shooting.

2. People with no first hand experience with guns get their information second hand from the news, politicians, television, and movies. News, politicians, TV, and movies almost universally portray guns in a negative light.

Solution - well first give them hands on experience. Secondly, write letters to the editor, inform politicians and vote and support those few that support gun rights, share movies that show firearm usage in a positive light, and share, when a person is open to it, literature that supports the right and duty to bear arms. Try to do this in a positive and informative rather than confrontational manner or tone.

3. Women and urban males are taught/socialized to be victims and to be dependent on government or others.

Solution - attack the culture of dependency and victim hood - support individual and local private community solutions to problems - as opposed to government solutions. Encourage responsibility instead of dependency. Point out in a positive way the many benefits of accepting responsibility for ones life and feelings as opposed to trying to impose a one size fits all solution that really won’t work. Acknowledge common goals while gently suggesting non-dependent and non-government solutions. Pet peeve - one of FDR’s four freedoms - the freedom from fear is a spiritual issue that has no solution outside of one’s self, let alone a government solution.

4. Most individuals don’t like to deal with or seriously think about unpleasant things, (I.e. death, where the steak they eat comes from, having to defend their life or their family, etc…), urban dwellers in first world nations are particularly removed from the normal processes of life and death unlike rural populations. This fosters an I don’t want to know or have to think about it attitude, let alone really having to deal with it. Guns represent a direct affront to such an individual - just the image or thought of one, let alone a real one.

Solution - engage people in your life in non-confrontational conversations, (don’t argue), to learn their thoughts and feelings. Don’t denigrate their thoughts and feelings - accept them as their valid and real feelings and thoughts. When listening to them, (really listen don’t just bide your time until you can jump in and “correct” them). Acknowledge their point of view and then share your feelings and your thoughts without directly attacking theirs. Talk about yourself without “judging” them. Such discussions do not have to be limited to guns, in fact they shouldn’t. They should include all those difficult and uncomfortable things that we don’t like to normally look at, such as death, self-defense, personal accountability, the meaning and purposes of life. Don’t approach it as an argument - because you can’t really win an argument - besides you don’t want to win an argument - what you really want is to engage in discussions that lead to the development of an emotionally mature and spiritually centered person. Such discussions will help everyone involved - us included.

5. Some people really believe that "guns are evil" for many of the above mentioned reasons and as a result they identify totally with that belief.

Solution - when someone truly believes that guns are evil - they are emotionally invested in that belief - it is a feeling that is valid to them. One cannot argue to any positive effect with such a person. Arguing with them only leads them to feel that they are being personally attacked - because their belief that guns are evil is part of their identity. There is no quick or short term solution for such a situation. One can listen without argument. Validate that you accept that is how they feel. Don’t immediately volunteer your differing beliefs. Accept them for who they are and if you can, engage them in conversations about issues that they are more open about or about which you may agree. Earn their trust and respect over time and then if the opportunity presents, share your differing thoughts and feelings about guns and the right to keep and bear arms. But do it as above in a conversational and non-confrontational way. Finally even if they never agree with you they may at least accept that you and others feel differently than they do and that perhaps live and let live is a better solution than gun bans.

6. Women and urbanites are socialized to hate direct confrontation - a gun is a powerful symbol of direct confrontation.

Solution - take them shooting and/or show them that guns serve many purposes - hunting, sport, self-defense - (most instances result in no crime being committed and no shots fired), and that what they thought they knew about gun owners and guns is by far not the whole story.


7. Women and urban males are more invested in their desire for security than liberty. For both, this is part of societies current socialization process. For women this also may tie into the desire for security to raise a family and to protect children. For urban males this may have more to do with emotional and spiritual immaturity and an unwillingness to become an adult.

Solution - Acknowledge their need for security and discuss how guns are a necessary part of security in the real world. With immature males tell them to grow a pair and become men. (Okay, that last comment might not be a good idea - though I have less patience with such “men.”) With immature men - find a gun toting woman to take them shooting - then the boys will want to grow up.


Individuals who are secure in themselves do not feel the need to control others.

Oh, since this is on THR - I should add that Oleg's photos are wonderful and thought provoking - they offer a way to get others to think in a non-confrontational way.


Please feel free to comment, add your own thoughts, or to correct me as you see fit.

 

[Infidel]

Very well said.

 

[TallPine]

. People with no first hand experience with guns get their information second hand from the news, politicians, television, and movies.

Well, I suppose I got most of my initial exposure to guns from Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, etc ... and it didn't seem to hurt me none

 

[Taurus 66]

I noticed you mentioning two types of people: women and urban males. If I may add, what about the socialites among us who fear/hate guns and support gun control? They can be anyone from the soccer moms or urban males, to Farmer Brown in the sticks.

 

[mack]

Why TallPine, you must be an "old fogey" like me.

 

[mack]

Taurus 66 - I'm not sure what you mean by socialites - could you educate me as to your thoughts?

I just "threw up" a few of my thoughts that have been rolling around in my noggin of late and I posted this because I really am interested in learning from other's experience here. I feel we are in a sort of "culture" war when it comes to freedom and gun rights - though I don't feel that the war is defined by traditional right left politics or religious non-religious paradigms.

 

[Charles Lowry]

Mack, I'm new here, but am 55 and remember the 60's very well. I agree with everything you pointed out, and so succintly!

I remember the term 'gun-nut' from the 60's. Also the stigma when I, as a farmer, rode into town with a rear window gun rack in my truck. Those were days in our history where impressions made stuck! The anti-war protests were all over, our soldiers, fighting and dying, were called baby-killers. The symbol for all this 'violence' and 'murder' was the M16. It was the weapon universally carried by every soldier. Kennedy had been assassinated, but the same stigma was not attached to guns (in spite of the gun control act) as it was when the news showed American troops in actual combat.

All the while the people back home were being fed the dope about our boys wiping out entire villages, killing babies...and all this was 'enabled' by the evil rifle.

My experience with women and guns, before the Brady Bill was simply that they didn't like guns because they made a lot of noise. It was next to imposible to get a lady to shoot a .357, particularly if she'd heard one. A shotgun kicked too much, AND made a lot of noise as well. I was able to get several women to actually go plinking with a .22! No recoil, no noise!

They're just what I observed from the 'gun-nut' days. Your points are all valid today. The gun-nut crown has grown up and now they have grandchildren whom they have taught to hate guns because guns are made to kill people and Bambi.

Just an old-timer's point of view based on history, as it was presented to us over 40 years ago. (Kent State didn't help either)

 

[rallyhound]

I would like to add one thought.
Some people simply have never been in a situation where having a firearm would have been beneficial to them.
If you have never been in a bad spot or spent any time in remote areas you may just not see any need for a gun.
Those of us that grew up in bad neighborhoods and have encountered dangerous animals in outdoor settings just realize that some situations call for the need to handle the problem yourself.
I realize that people are on both sides of Issues, some people just don't see it as an issue either way.

 

[orangeninja]

Women and "urban males?"

Come on now. What is this, a country boy playing the role of snob?

I grew up in a nice small town in the Mississippi Delta region, but I've been a city slicker since 13 years old and I take issue with the following:

"Women and urban males are taught/socialized to be victims and to be dependent on government or others."---exactly how? Through socialization? I know that in big cities in Texas I didn't see any "how to become a victim" classes. Perhaps what you meant to say was that there were no "how NOT to become a victim" classes, but do they have those in the country? Or perhaps you meant that country folk are just more independent? Again, would that be necessarily true?

Gonna have to take issue with this as well:

"Most individuals don’t like to deal with or seriously think about unpleasant things, (I.e. death, where the steak they eat comes from, having to defend their life or their family, etc…), urban dwellers in first world nations are particularly removed from the normal processes of life and death unlike rural populations. This fosters an I don’t want to know or have to think about it attitude, let alone really having to deal with it. Guns represent a direct affront to such an individual - just the image or thought of one, let alone a real one."

So what you're saying is that in the country people have to deal with unpleasant things that people in the city don't have to deal with? Like street bums? Muggers? High crime rates? Perhaps gangs? Drug dealers? Oh wait, I got confused for a second. That’s stuff that urban folks DO have to deal with. Maybe you mean something unpleasant like raisin’ hawgs.

“Some people really believe that "guns are evil" for many of the above mentioned reasons and as a result they identify totally with that belief.”

Well I believe money is used for evil purposes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t take all I can get. So you propose that urban folks just think that guns are inherently evil? The same urban folks who (at least in Texas) overwhelmingly support the legislation for a Concealed Handgun License? The same urban dwellers who time and time again vote conservative and pro-gun? Or did you just mean those “other” urbanites.

“Women and urbanites are socialized to hate direct confrontation - a gun is a powerful symbol of direct confrontation.”

And you get this from which psychological study? Last I heard it is human nature to avoid confrontation unnecessarily at any point. But trust me Big Country; there are certainly plenty of urbanites who will tell you where the bus stops (metaphorically speaking). I happen to believe most urbanites are MORE confrontational than country folks. And that’s from living with both types. A gun can symbolize a penis too, but that and a nickel can buy you a hot cup of jack-squat.

“Women and urban males are more invested in their desire for security than liberty. For both, this is part of societies current socialization process. For women this also may tie into the desire for security to raise a family and to protect children. For urban males this may have more to do with emotional and spiritual immaturity and an unwillingness to become an adult.”

See, now you’re just getting offensive. What in essence you are saying is that most urbanites would gladly sell their liberties to ensure that they are able to be safe and secure. Well let me ask you this, when was the last time you felt 100% safe and secure ANYWHERE in a big city? Yet we still have not initiated marshal law, we still haven’t got a cop on every corner, we just deal with it. Now with the urban male, there are plenty of warriors within the population to make being a career criminal a poor venture, at least here in North Texas. So I’m not really seeing where you find this “unwillingness to grow up?” The fact is, the city can get a lot uglier than the country in a hurry, now you tell me who’s not willing to face what. City dwellers see people at their worst at times.

I find this post both philosophically dishonest and ignorant. Sorry, but before you go lumping “women and urban males” into a category for a psychological………um…….study? Hypothesis? Educated guess? Theory? Or assumptions? You should probably get some background, get some facts, get some sources (comic books and the Farmer’s Almanac don’t count), learn some psychology, maybe perform a study (I’d read it) but sitting around the coke machine saying things like this while your friends reply “Yep” doesn’t exactly count for much.

 

[Kodiaz]

Hey let's change "urban males" to "metro sexuals". I grew up in an urban area and I've been shooting since I was 5 (Red Ryder). My first rifle (Marlin .22) cam when I was 9.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Well said, mack!

Women and urban males are taught/socialized to be victims and to be dependent on government or others.

Actually, sad to say, this applies to the whole nation. There are an awful lot of farmers, for example, who are wholly dependent upon government "crop subsidies." An awful lot of employers are dependent upon government looking the other way from illegal aliens to hold down their labor costs.

When 20% of the gross national product is government, there's a great deal of dependence here, there, and everywhere.

That said™, I think your essay is on target.

 

[JohnKSa]

6. Women and urbanites are socialized to hate direct confrontation

This is a universal aspect of humanity in general, not just women and urbanites. The vast majority of normal people hate direct confrontation and actually fear it to one degree or another.

 

[Taurus 66]

Taurus 66 - I'm not sure what you mean by socialites - could you educate me as to your thoughts?

Def 1: "A person, usually of high social class, who is famous because they go to a lot of parties and social events which are reported in the newspapers."

Def 2: "A socialist or affiliate of a socialist party."

Definition 2.

 

[gunsmith]

I am a native New Yorker

and about as urban as you get, my dad was against gun control and I learned it from him he had a few guns around but never took me shooting
I shot my first gun in the BSA...I wonder if they still let them do that.
In a way, I became a right wing gun nut because of CA!
If they hadn't have made everything illegal I never would have gotten into guns.
When I was younger I used to be "pro choice" and a Democrat who didn't think the dems were after gun owners...thanks to having to try & live in a peoples dictatorship (san francisco and new york) I've become a pro life right wing gun nut with a NRA life membership and a AR15.....thanks feinstein, schumer and kerry!

 

[Hockeydude]

Living in NYC, I experience this firsthand.

Yuppies are scared of guns the most. The ones that sit in Starbucks and discuss how Bush kills black babies, and how America needs an idea socialist revolution.
They always say how minorities and workers are being oppressed. But they would never dream of allowing these workers and minorities to own guns. Why? Because they are hypocrites, and know everyone would turn against them. They run for office on the premise of equal rights, but in reality are the racists themselves. They wan't nothing more than an elite liberal rulling class that tells everyone what to think.

 

[cracked butt]

If you are going to lump women as in 'all women' or 'women in general' with urban males, you've probably never lived in a rural area.

If you think that the typical farm girl can't shoot, you're deceiving yourself.

 

[mack]

Sorry you took personal offense to my post alduro, but as I stated in the title I did not say all and I took pains to state that individuals amongst the general population can vary a lot.

First as far as your personal assumptions about me - I have lived and worked in Chicago and experienced life there. I have lived and experienced live in a mid-sized city and I have lived and experienced life in the country. So I am not basing my thoughts on just some psychological babble that I read somewhere.

I currently work in a mid-sized city - with primarily socially liberal and politically liberal - mostly college educated - individuals. A sizable number have moved here from Chicago.

My work is as a counselor and I deal with individuals and their fears everyday.

That said, it does not necessarily mean that anything I stated in my original post is empirically valid. However, forgive me if I take issue with some of your statements.

I would say that it is true that depending on the area of the nation or state that one lives in there are significant differences. Many southern states and the cities there are still accepting of firearms and the right to bear arms. However, I would still maintain that the larger the city and the longer it has been established/civilized that the less acceptance there is of guns and gun rights. Do you disagree that guns are more accepted and a part of life in the more rural areas of our country as a general rule than in the cities?

As far as the taught to be more dependent or victims - ask a rural person or a person from a small town what they are going to do when the electricity goes out or what they are going to do about that snow that filled up their lane. Most have already planned to respond to such situations themselves - they have a plow or a generator or a fireplace or heater. In the city people are more dependent on government provided services - it is not a moral judgment, I'm not implying in any way that rural folks are in any way superior - just a function of the government's provision of services that differ between the city and country. If one lives in a large city it is natural for one to become more dependent on government for day to day services - transportation, heat, power, food, protection. In less urban areas there is not the expectation that government should solve most problems. Also look at the gun control movement - is the push for gun control primarily an urban or rural movement. Are more women or men for gun control? What is gun control but the desire that government solve the problem of violence with guns. When one becomes or begins to feel dependent on something, such as government, it is a natural consequence that they begin to learn to become passive victims of problems and look to government to solve their problems, no "classes" are needed.


How do urban people typically deal with the problems you mention - muggers - street bums - gangs - and drug dealers. They complain to the authorities and ask them to solve the problems for them. How many urban individuals have the stomach to raise and slaughter hogs or cattle? People in rural areas still tend to rely more on families, friends, neighbors, and local churches for help than government. When confronted with an intruder that poses a threat to themselves, what do you believe the odds are that an urbanite vs. a rural person will call 911 or grab a gun? Rural life is naturally more connected to the rhythms of life and death that urban life. That doesn't make rural folk more virtuous than urban folk.

I restricted my proposition that that "guns are evil" to the subgroup of "some" people and not "most women or most urban men," and indicated that some people feel that way for the aforementioned reasons in my original post. That would however mean that yes, it is more common that people who feel that "guns are evil" are women or urban males. In regards to your suggestion that people still want to have things that they feel are evil because they can use them for there own purposes - I don't necessarily disagree - I seem to remember a number of anti-gun politicians who enjoy body guards or have their own guns while voting to deprive you and me or our gun rights. Also a number of members and organizers of the million mom march that were later arrested for the illegal use or possession of a gun. I don't think that such hypocrisy invalidates my point - as most people who feel guns are evil don't have them - especially in proportion to those that like or enjoy guns. Do you really feel money is evil? I would think it is neither good nor evil - just a thing like a gun- rather it is the importance, meaning, and purpose that we as individuals attach to it that makes it seem good or evil.

As far as confrontation - I have found that individuals in cities tend to be more passive-aggressive than rural folk. That urban dwellers tend to have more of a not my job attitude than rural individuals. I have found in my experience that you are more likely to be threatened to be sued, (passive-aggressive), in the city than in the country. I guess part of the problem here is the use of the word confrontation and what I meant by that term. By confrontation what I meant was that urban men and women tend to want/expect someone else to deal with it (the law, court, the hired professional), where the more rural person often by default and habit ends up dealing with it on their own. I also find that women do not like direct confrontation - men will have a direct confrontation, knock down drag out and then be friends - women tend to hold grudges more often - again not all women or men, but in general.

City dwellers do not usually really "see" people at their worst - they could but they often learn to turn a blind eye, denial. When I lived in the city I was taught to step over the bums on the train station stairs and not give them a second thought. Where I live now, we would give them a ride or direct them to shelter or a local church, or call someone for them. Sometimes things are there to be seen but they are ignored and not seen or felt or dealt with or confronted by an individual. I knew many people in the city who felt as safe as I do in the country. Feeling safe is not dependent on the reality that surrounds one, but on a persons state of mind and their beliefs.


In nothing I've posted do I attribute or even imply that the differences between women, urban men and more rural peoples are due to any moral or other superiority. Mostly people through socialization and everyday habit or necessity fall into certain habits of behavior or mind. That doesn't, at least in my mind, make one person somehow superior to the other. I don't see how one could find what I've written as insulting unless one wanted to take it in ways other than intended.


But the fact is that there are differences between men and women and the way they tend to look at the world and there are generally differences between men that live in urban areas and more rural areas. There are well documented, (as also supported by my own life experience), differences in their; gun ownership rates, opinions about guns and gun rights, and their attitudes towards government.

Do you dispute those differences? If not how do you account for the fact that proportionally, even in southern states, that women and urban men are more likely to be for more gun control than rural folk? I would be interested in your explanation.

 

[mack]

cracked butt - not all women - certainly there are many on this board who like guns and shooting. And I would further say that there are lots of women who like guns and shooting. But I think it is demonstrable that the majority of women, particularily urban women, are "more likely" to be anti-gun. And that urban men are more likely to be anti-gun than non-urban men.

Perhaps I should reiterate that my post was not meant to be any kind of judgement on women or urban men - nor to suggest that "all women" or "all urban men" feel or think as I suggested, there are sizable numbers that do not. I would also add that the concerns and feelings of anti-gun advocates are valid - just that I believe that their solutions are flawed.

I believe that the only way we can effectively defeat the gun control movement is to first understand the concerns, feelings, and motivations of those who are for it. I have been struck by the obvious differences in the typical attitude towards guns between non-urban men and women and urban men. I want to understand the reasons for those differences. I may well be wrong and if someone can share and shed more light on the why of those differences, I really do want to know.

 

[cracked butt]

particularily urban women, are "more likely" to be anti-gun. And that urban men are more likely to be anti-gun than non-urban men.

Now that you made that clarification, I'll agree.

 

[orangeninja]

Mack, I'm not personally offended by your essay, suffice to say it was a bit simplistic. I disagree with some basic assumptions you have about people. First, I do not believe that geographical area or social environment is the final deciding factor on a person’s political bias and motives. For instance, if you were raised a certain way, then you will rebel for a time, then turn back to the way in which you were raised to a point. I find scumbags from the country and scumbags from the city. I find conservatives from the country and conservatives from the city. Being that you are from Chicago, the difference between Chicago and the rest of Illinois is night and day. However that is one city and one state. Dallas, Texas and Chicago, Illinois were settled and established roughly around the same time. However North Texas has probably developed much slower than Chicago, that being said, the DFW Metroplex is HUGE, not some mid-range urban area surrounded by farms that some think it to be.

As for citizens counting on the government, I believe another poster established the security the government allows for rural areas as well. If the lights go out in my house, I’m not firing up a generator, I’m going to call the people I pay damn good money to provide electricity to do so. In many urban areas a generator is simply not legal or even practical. You have to live within your environment and act accordingly.

You asked “Do you disagree that guns are more accepted and a part of life in the more rural areas of our country as a general rule than in the cities?”

In the country I find that guns are viewed as a tool, not a novelty, not even something to be desired, it’s like a shovel, you have it to use as a tool. I don’t think that this means it is more generally “accepted” as in a political fashion, it’s just something you need. So yes they are part of life in the country.

You asked “Are more women or men for gun control?” To be honest I’ve never taken a poll, have you?

I’m assuming this is a question “Also look at the gun control movement - is the push for gun control primarily an urban or rural movement.” No, I don’t find it to be an urban thing, I find it to be a politician thing and politicians try to persuade large voting bodies, ala’ a city. Most people I know hate gun control or are very indifferent. Including people along the east coast. I don’t believe that the media and politicos represent the desires of a given society accurately at all. But with a 2 party system, what is one to do? So I disagree with your assumption that gun control comes from city people who “sit in Starbucks” sucking down Lattes and talking about racism.

“How do urban people typically deal with the problems you mention - muggers - street bums - gangs - and drug dealers. They complain to the authorities and ask them to solve the problems for them.” ---mack

Right, and farmers never complain to the government. The difference is, the crime rates in rural areas are not significant enough to garner dissent among the populace would you not agree? However what does matter to the rural areas is money and when it is in short supply, the complaints follow. If you had homeless and crime problems in the country, you would complain.

“Do you really feel money is evil?” Nope. It was an “example”.

“I have found that individuals in cities tend to be more passive-aggressive than rural folk.” I wouldn’t exactly call that authoritative, but who cares right? In a city there is simply more avenues of “get back at ya” than in the rural areas. Like lawsuits. I don’t advocate them but that’s the way it is. Ever been sued? If that’s not a direct confrontation I don’t know what is. Now it isn’t a fist fight, but then it isn’t a fist fight.

“City dwellers do not usually really "see" people at their worst - they could but they often learn to turn a blind eye, denial. When I lived in the city I was taught to step over the bums on the train station stairs and not give them a second thought.” As a counselor you should know this is called becoming desensitized. This occurs through OVER-exposure to bad elements. You are able to do that because you have “seen it before”. Thus I stick to my proposition that city people see people at their worst more often than rural folk. Whether they care or not is a different story.

Lastly “But the fact is that there are differences between men and women and the way they tend to look at the world and there are generally differences between men that live in urban areas and more rural areas. There are well documented, (as also supported by my own life experience), differences in their; gun ownership rates, opinions about guns and gun rights, and their attitudes towards government.

Do you dispute those differences? If not how do you account for the fact that proportionally, even in southern states, that women and urban men are more likely to be for more gun control than rural folk? I would be interested in your explanation.”

Sure, again in rural areas a gun is a thing, a tool, something akin to a shovel. That doesn’t mean farmer Brown isn’t a Yellow Dog Democrat, he may place no political value on his gun at all and just because he has one, doesn’t mean he is pro-2nd Amendment, more likely he doesn’t care, but since it is a tool, the ownership in rural areas will be higher than urban. Here is a more interesting question, do rural areas have a greater ownership of DEFENSIVE guns that those in urban areas statistically? Probably not. When a gun is owned in a city, it is more likely than not for defensive purposes, not necessarily so in the country. How many people defend themselves with a scoped 30-06?

As for the gender differences, men in urban areas are still men. Football, beer, chasin’ women, driving fast, eating meat, all things men like to do, even in urban areas. Some of us like to shoot too, just like some gun owner farmers couldn’t give a rat’s behind about shooting.

As for women, most women I know vote with their feelings, not their heads. If the conservative line makes them feel good, they vote for that, if it makes them feel bad, they vote for something else.

I’m tired of typing for now….but good debate, though I still disagree. Your second post didn’t seem nearly as ignorant as the first. (no offense)

 

[BIGR]

Well said......I sure am glad my folks were from the country and I had the freedom to target shoot and to hunt. I love it and would never move anywhere close to the city. A COUNTRY BOY CAN SURVIVE.....

 

[PILMAN]

Well this post is great. This is definitely great arguments against the anti's.

 

[Librarian]

alduro asks

You asked “Are more women or men for gun control?” To be honest I’ve never taken a poll, have you?

Not me, but some people have.

See The Cultural Cognition Project. Their first link, to the .pdf file more statistics, less persuasion, says

The gun control debate is naturally framed as one involving competing perceptions of risk. Control advocates emphasize the risk that insufficient regulation will make citizens vulnerable to deliberate or accidental shootings, while opponents stress the risk that excessive regulation will leave citizens unable to defend themselves against violent predation. The cultural theory of risk suggests that an individual will select one or the other of these risks for attention depending on how society’s response to that risk coheres with that individual’s
worldview.

Various forms of existing research on public opinion lend plausibility to this view. The strongest predictors of attitudes toward gun control—aside from gun ownership—are demographic. [30] Whites are nearly 40% more likely than blacks; Protestants 33% more likely than Catholics and nearly 200% more likely than Jews; and men more than 100% more likely than women to oppose gun control. [32] There are also significant regional and community-type variations: northeasterners are significantly more likely than southerners and westerners, and urban dwellers are significantly more likely than country dwellers, to support control. Insofar as group membership influences the formation of a person’s values, the demographic clustering of gun control attitudes is suggestive, if not conclusive proof, of the impact of culture on gun-risk perceptions.

[30]
See TOM W. SMITH, 1999 NATIONAL GUN POLICY SURVEY OF THE NATIONAL
OPINION RESEARCH CENTER: RESEARCH FINDINGS 19-24 (2000) hereinafter 1999 NATIONAL GUN POLICY SURVEY] (describing demographic differences in gun control attitudes), available at http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/gunrpt.htm link to .pdf; TOM W. SMITH, 1996 NATIONAL GUN POLICY SURVEY OF THE NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER: RESEARCH FINDINGS 5-6 (1997) [hereinafter 1996 NATIONAL GUN POLICY SURVEY] (same); Gary Kleck, Crime, Culture Conflict and the Sources of Support for Gun Control, 39 AM. BEHAV. SCIENTIST 387, 390, 398 (1996) (concluding that certain demographic factors predict support for gun control). Gun ownership, while a strong predictor of attitudes toward gun control, is not a particularly useful one. The most obvious reason is that it simply shifts the question from “Why do people support or oppose gun control?” to “Why do people own or not own guns?”

[32]
Id. It might be thought that some of these demographic labels are actually describing the same people—that those who live in rural areas are not only more likely to oppose gun control, but are also more likely to be white than black and Protestant than Jewish. Statistical models controlling for each of these demographic predictors have shown, however, that not only do these demographic descriptors predict differing attitudes toward gun control, but also that they do so independently of one another. See Kleck, supra note 30, at 391-99 (using a multivariate analysis to study the relationship between demographic factors and attitudes toward gun control); see also infra Part II.C (describing the results of our regression analyses).

The "gunreport.pdf" has tables 14, 15, 16 directly applicable to the discussion.

Note that NGPS was funded by the Joyce Foundation, whose position on guns is known to be fairly negative. The GSS is generally more neutral, but that does not necessarily equate to 'good'. It is, however, 'what we have' and is widely used in social science literature.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

Actually based on the results of the last presidential election, and what each party stood for; Mack would seem to have a pretty valid point.

Note: Texas is a notable exception (Austin or SanMarcos area, and the border towns excluded) , But who was it that said that the exception proves the rule???

For the most part the City dwellers know little about firearms, (aside from what they learned on CSI and Battlefield 2); and as a result, fear guns.

It's the ignorance bred from the talking heads into believing that ( 1. I would never get robbed, that only happens in the bad part of town.) 2. Women who get raped, should offer the rapist a condom, and 3. if I give him my money he won't hurt me.


And I further agree that the best way to change an anti is to take them shooting..

In really bad cases something with Da-Switch may be needed. No one fires full auto with a frown.

My personal opinion as to why people are anti is .

1. Projection--People fear others having guns because of what they "feel" they might do if they had a gun.
2. Retarded self worth/reliance issues(I'm probably not got the term right) They don't feel they are worth protecting, would not be capable of protecting themselves.
This one is from a friend of mine, but it makes sense the more I think of it.
3. Fear of Armed Minorities.. No liberal will ever admit to it,(not PC).

 

[mack]

Alduro, thank you for your reply - I appreciate the time and thought you took to address my posts. While we may not agree, it is important to discuss the issue of gun control. Also to others who have participated in this thread, even if I did not respond directly to your post, thank you for the many replies.


“First, I do not believe that geographical area or social environment is the final deciding factor on a person’s political bias and motives.”

I would not and have not suggested such a thing. Individuals are complex and the number of factors that play into any one individuals decisions and attitudes towards life are really almost impossible to determine. My point was more sociological - out of any population of X numbers of people there will be a certain number of Y and a certain number of Z - and what are some of the more “common” influences - that lead some to choose Y and others to choose Z.

“As for citizens counting on the government, I believe another poster established the security the government allows for rural areas as well. If the lights go out in my house, I’m not firing up a generator, I’m going to call the people I pay damn good money to provide electricity to do so. In many urban areas a generator is simply not legal or even practical. You have to live within your environment and act accordingly. “

Which was my point exactly that urban populations by virtue of their environment are more likely to depend of government, and then the point that you dispute, that because they become more accustomed to relying on government that they are “more” inclined to seek government remedy for problems, such as gun control for gun violence. I don’t see how living in an environment for years or since birth cannot have a significant influence on a persons attitudes and beliefs. It does. Yes, in any given individual it may not be the “defining” factor in their attitudes or beliefs, but over a given population it will have a significant impact. Above you discuss the differences between Chicago and Dallas, but a truer examination of my point would be to compare non-urban areas of Texas with Dallas or other urban areas of Texas. I believe that such an examination would support that proportionally there is more support for gun control amongst urban populations than non-urban populations.


“You asked “Do you disagree that guns are more accepted and a part of life in the more rural areas of our country as a general rule than in the cities?” In the country I find that guns are viewed as a tool, not a novelty, not even something to be desired, it’s like a shovel, you have it to use as a tool. I don’t think that this means it is more generally “accepted” as in a political fashion, it’s just something you need. So yes they are part of life in the country.”


I believe you are mistaken here, you do acknowledge that guns are more accepted in non-urban areas in that they are used and therefore seen more as normal tools than in urban areas, but you argue that it doesn’t translate/affect the political views of individuals. I would agree that it does not “necessarily” translate directly to any “one individuals” political views, but I would argue that yes it does significantly impact the political views of numbers of individuals in a given population. Individuals who are less likely to have first hand experience or more limited experience with guns and who do not have a mental reference to guns as normal tools are more likely on average to be more easily swayed to believe in the efficacy or desirability of gun control.

“You asked “Are more women or men for gun control?” To be honest I’ve never taken a poll, have you?”

No, I have not personally taken a poll. But I am familiar with a number of polls taken by professionals for news organizations and politicians that indicate that women are more likely than men to support gun control.

I’m assuming this is a question “Also look at the gun control movement - is the push for gun control primarily an urban or rural movement.” No, I don’t find it to be an urban thing, I find it to be a politician thing and politicians try to persuade large voting bodies, ala’ a city. Most people I know hate gun control or are very indifferent. Including people along the east coast. I don’t believe that the media and politicos represent the desires of a given society accurately at all. But with a 2 party system, what is one to do? So I disagree with your assumption that gun control comes from city people who “sit in Starbucks” sucking down Lattes and talking about racism.

Well, the Starbucks comment wasn’t mine. But let me see if I understand you - you primarily believe that the gun control movement is not supported by people urban or non-urban but is essentially just a reflection of the desire of politicians and their parties. While I may agree that politicians are not truly reflective of the views of their constituents - I must disagree with you - that gun control is an issue that is not rooted in the desires of many politicians’ constituents. In New York City the majority of citizens support more gun control, polls show this. In San Francisco recently a referendum for more gun control was passed by popular vote. Those are reflections of the desires of a majority of the people in those areas, not simply creations or reflections of a politicians desire. Polls consistently show that there is significantly more support for gun control in urban areas than in non-urban areas. If that was simply the result of politicians expressing their desire for more gun control and whipping up support for it through political adds - then there should be no difference between support for gun control in urban or non-urban populations. Also politicians despite what we may think of them at times are human beings who are also influenced by their environment and politicians from urban areas are more likely to support gun control than those from non-urban areas.

“How do urban people typically deal with the problems you mention - muggers - street bums - gangs - and drug dealers. They complain to the authorities and ask them to solve the problems for them.” ---mack

Right, and farmers never complain to the government. The difference is, the crime rates in rural areas are not significant enough to garner dissent among the populace would you not agree? However what does matter to the rural areas is money and when it is in short supply, the complaints follow. If you had homeless and crime problems in the country, you would complain.

Of course farmers/non-urbans complain when a ready government remedy is percieved. As I’ve previously stated non-urban populations are “less likely” to seek government remedy simply because it is not as readily available as an option. Population density is a factor in crime rates, homelessness and the availability of government services.

“Do you really feel money is evil?” Nope. It was an “example”.

“I have found that individuals in cities tend to be more passive-aggressive than rural folk.” I wouldn’t exactly call that authoritative, but who cares right? In a city there is simply more avenues of “get back at ya” than in the rural areas. Like lawsuits. I don’t advocate them but that’s the way it is. Ever been sued? If that’s not a direct confrontation I don’t know what is. Now it isn’t a fist fight, but then it isn’t a fist fight.


No, a lawsuit is not directly coming to grips with a problem. It is hiring professionals - lawyers to do the fighting in a court of law. Yes, it certainly can be aggressive - but it is passive aggressive - indirect aggression. And as I previously mentioned confrontation does not necessarily imply aggression - rather it is the willingness of individuals to directly deal with an issue, confront an issue, themselves without an intermediary.

“City dwellers do not usually really "see" people at their worst - they could but they often learn to turn a blind eye, denial. When I lived in the city I was taught to step over the bums on the train station stairs and not give them a second thought.” As a counselor you should know this is called becoming desensitized. This occurs through OVER-exposure to bad elements. You are able to do that because you have “seen it before”. Thus I stick to my proposition that city people see people at their worst more often than rural folk. Whether they care or not is a different story.


Whether they care or not, whether they personally allow that individual to touch them in a personal way embodies all the difference and makes my point. Why do they not care, because they don’t believe that any good will come from it, because caring would be exhausting and hurt, because as an individual they feel the problem is too big for them to really make a real difference, but being bothered by it on some level inside they need to justify their action or in this case their inaction so they say to themselves - I can’t make a difference - it’s not my responsibility - why doesn’t the city do something about this problem. I agree that there is more chance to see the worst in the cities but do they truly see more or do they just shut it off and deny the reality of it. Non-urban people may have less chance to see the reality of mans inhumanity to man on a day to day basis, but they are less likely to deny the reality of it when it is there, and more likely to see themselves as a part of the solution or problem. Not because they are more moral or virtuous but simply because they are more on their own and are more used to having to find their own solutions.

Lastly “But the fact is that there are differences between men and women and the way they tend to look at the world and there are generally differences between men that live in urban areas and more rural areas. There are well documented, (as also supported by my own life experience), differences in their; gun ownership rates, opinions about guns and gun rights, and their attitudes towards government.

Do you dispute those differences? If not how do you account for the fact that proportionally, even in southern states, that women and urban men are more likely to be for more gun control than rural folk? I would be interested in your explanation.”

Sure, again in rural areas a gun is a thing, a tool, something akin to a shovel. That doesn’t mean farmer Brown isn’t a Yellow Dog Democrat, he may place no political value on his gun at all and just because he has one, doesn’t mean he is pro-2nd Amendment, more likely he doesn’t care, but since it is a tool, the ownership in rural areas will be higher than urban.

I addressed the above earlier in the post - no it doesn’t necessarily mean a pro or anti gun position for any single individual but it does translate over a given population that people more familiar with guns are less likely to support gun control.

Here is a more interesting question, do rural areas have a greater ownership of DEFENSIVE guns that those in urban areas statistically? Probably not. When a gun is owned in a city, it is more likely than not for defensive purposes, not necessarily so in the country. How many people defend themselves with a scoped 30-06?


Statistically the population most likely to own a firearm for defensive purposes are urban women - they are also the population most likely to support gun control. Not the contradiction it seems as women are in general less likely to own firearms and urban women are least likely to own firearms. Also few people really own guns for just one purpose. The guy with the scoped 30-06 probably just grabbed his shotgun.

As for the gender differences, men in urban areas are still men. Football, beer, chasin’ women, driving fast, eating meat, all things men like to do, even in urban areas. Some of us like to shoot too, just like some gun owner farmers couldn’t give a rat’s behind about shooting.

Yes, it is not an all or nothing. Individuals in any given population may vary greatly - but - there are statistically significant differences over given populations. We know that statistically that proportionally fewer men in San Francisco will include chasing women in their regular activities than the general population, that doesn’t imply that there aren’t lots of men in San Francisco who do include chasing women in their activities.

As for women, most women I know vote with their feelings, not their heads. If the conservative line makes them feel good, they vote for that, if it makes them feel bad, they vote for something else.

Women and men are on par when it comes to intelligence. Women are generally more in touch with their feeling and more attuned to others feelings. It is something they pay more attention to then men, they tend to focus more on feelings and value them more. Therefore it is arguable, as you postulate, that they are more susceptible to emotional persuasion than men in general. Why that is, well books have been and are being written.


I think the most important thing for myself that I have identified from writing this thread and reading the responses is:

-Talk to people, not at them.
-Listen to their concerns and validate their feelings.
-Disagree respectfully.
-Take people shooting and teach them about guns.
-Continue to educate ourselves.
-Reaching out through media especially through the use of pictures and television can be very effective as it does not involve direct confrontation and can get people to think.


Lastly, rereading my original post - I regret my poor attempt at humor - when I talked about urban males who support gun control needing to “grow a pair.” I think it really detracted from this particular thread. I must admit also that I do have a problem accepting the attitude I have experienced on occasion when talking to certain individual males who have stated that they would rather die or let their families die than have or use a gun to defend themselves or their families - I believe they are tragically misguided - and I have a hard time stomaching a man who would not act to defend his family. This is not a typical attitude amongst most gun control advocates that I have met. I'll work on trying to not be so morally judgemental in that situation.