Psychology behind America's gun culture.

[Father Heathen]

Let's play armchair psychologists.

I suspect that many enthusiasts see guns as an extension/representation of their masculinity, and thus consider restrictions to be emasculating.
Perhaps even silently considering dead school children to be an acceptable cost.

What say you?

 

[Shaul]

I say you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We got ter protect R dang house against them intruders. N I’m pretty sure bigfoot is out there too.

Come try to take my guns, liberals! I’ll be a-waitin!

 

[ChristineM]

Let's play armchair psychologists.

I suspect that many enthusiasts see guns as an extension/representation of their masculinity, and thus consider restrictions to be emasculating.
Perhaps even silently considering dead school children to be an acceptable cost.

What say you?

I would say you have that spot on

 

[PureX]

It's about self-empowerment.

As the wealthy elites own and control more and more of everything we need in life to thrive, everyone else has lost more and more control over their own fate. And men, in particular, feel the humiliation of that loss in their everyday life.

Guns provide them the illusion that they still have control over their own fate. And that illusion means a great deal to them in a world where they don't otherwise have that control. Even though it's just a fantasy of control, it's still a very powerful fantasy. One that is so important to so many men that they won't accept even the most minimal and reasonable regulation of gun possession. And they don't care who or how many people die as a result. Having those guns means being able to tell themselves that they still have control over their own fate. And that's a very big deal to a lot of men ... and some women, too.

 

[Stevicus]

Let's play armchair psychologists.

I suspect that many enthusiasts see guns as an extension/representation of their masculinity, and thus consider restrictions to be emasculating.
Perhaps even silently considering dead school children to be an acceptable cost.

What say you?

It may be psychological or perhaps culture.

I noticed that it's often the case in discussions about America and guns, comparisons to Europe are often made. But one thing I've noticed about Europe is that they tend to take better care of their citizenry than what American political culture would typically allow.

America tends to favor a more "macho" culture of self-reliance, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps - where a "real man" doesn't sit and whine about his problems, he takes action. If that's the kind of culture we want, then it's a case of "be careful what you wish for."

In fact, I see a lot of people who react viscerally whenever they see something they think is weak or "whining." It's a dog-eat-dog world in our culture, and anyone who can't hack it must be some kind of wimp or loser or worse. This is the common mentality I've seen in our culture much of my life.

So, these shooters are no longer whiners. They may be morally worse, but on the social scale, they're elevated since they demonstrate strength over weakness. In our culture, one's ranking on the social hierarchy is more valued than one's ranking on the moral hierarchy.

 

[Father Heathen]

I say you have no idea what you are talking about.

What's your theory on why they run their tongue along the length of their gun's barrel?

 

[Wu Wei]

Let's play armchair psychologists.

I suspect that many enthusiasts see guns as an extension/representation of their masculinity, and thus consider restrictions to be emasculating.
Perhaps even silently considering dead school children to be an acceptable cost.

What say you?

Well that is not so much a psychologist approach as it is a one sided point of view that is rather insulting and shows no desire what-so-ever to understand or find agreement or common ground... showing you have made your decision, and have no desire to use a psychological approach at all,,,,,.therefore to answer your question.....I say you like to start arguments.....

have a nice day

 

[Father Heathen]

Well that is not so much a psychologist approach as it is a one sided point of view that is rather insulting and shows no desire what-so-ever to understand or find agreement or common ground....therefore to answer your question.....I say you like to start arguments.....

have a nice day

I tried to see the other side, but a pile of dead school children obstructed my view.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Let's play armchair psychologists.

I suspect that many enthusiasts see guns as an extension/representation of their masculinity, and thus consider restrictions to be emasculating.
Perhaps even silently considering dead school children to be an acceptable cost.

What say you?

Guns used to be a tool. Now they are an identity of a person. We used to look more at inward qualities. Now we look at outward qualities and actions.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I would say you have that spot on

Makes sense. Uber masculinity at its worst.

 

[Wu Wei]

I tried to see the other side, but a pile of dead school children obstructed my view.

no, no you didn't, you are using extreme examples to make your point, not trying to reach any understanding at all.... you show little understanding or even a desire to understand anything of Gun laws in the USA.... you have lumped every single gun owner, man and woman alike, into a group with a tenuous grip of their masculinity who like dead children.... and there is no justifiable way, whatsoever to defend this as an attempt to understand anything..... but it is a great way to start an argument.... of which I will have no part of...I will not waste my time further in this attack post you have created.... because we all know all antigun men and women, are wimpy fear mongering sissies, who don't care about protecting their own children who are incredibly brave with the anonymity of the web...and that goes double if they are from another country.... see...that is an example of what you are doing...and trying to say it is an attempt to understand..... its an attack, its offensive, and you know it is...that is why you posted it to begin with...

have a nice day..... I will waste no more time here

NOTE, to other posters: My gross generalization about antigun people is an example of what the OP did and tried to cover as an discussion, it is far from what I actually believe

 

[Augustus]

The best thing ever made on gun ownership:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I tried to see the other side, but a pile of dead school children obstructed my view.

Yeah, we have reached a point where a certain part of the population does deserve blame, scorn and contempt. And it's because they scream and wail and gnash their teeth over the idea of gun control but don't give a damn about the people being shot and killed at schools, bars or Walmarts just so long as they can have their security blanket/gun to live with the false security they'll stop it should it happen to them.

 

[Father Heathen]

no, no you don't, you are using extreme examples to make your point, not trying to reach any understanding at all.... you show little understanding or even a desire to understand anything of Gun laws in the USA.... you have lumped every single gun owner, man and woman alike, into a group with a tenuous grip of thier masculinity who like dead children.... and there is no justifiable way, whatsoever to defend this as an attempt to understand anything..... but it is a great way to start an argument.... of which I will have no part of...I will not waste my time further in this attack post you have created.... because we all know all antigun men and women, are wimpy fear mongering sissies, who don't care about protecting their own children who are incredibly brave with the anonymity of the web...and that goes double if they are from another country.... see...that is an example of what you are doing...and trying to say it is an attempt to understand..... its an attack, and you know it is...that is why you posted it to begin with...

have a nice day..... I will waste no more time here

Wrong. In my OP I said many, not all. The fact you got so emotional and defensive lends credence to my point, that guns are more than just tools to many (again, not all) enthusiasts. It's a shame you've succumbed to butthurt rather than offer some thought and insight.

 

[F1fan]

no, no you didn't, you are using extreme examples to make your point, not trying to reach any understanding at all.... you show little understanding or even a desire to understand anything of Gun laws in the USA.... you have lumped every single gun owner, man and woman alike, into a group with a tenuous grip of their masculinity who like dead children.... and there is no justifiable way, whatsoever to defend this as an attempt to understand anything..... but it is a great way to start an argument.... of which I will have no part of...I will not waste my time further in this attack post you have created.... because we all know all antigun men and women, are wimpy fear mongering sissies, who don't care about protecting their own children who are incredibly brave with the anonymity of the web...and that goes double if they are from another country.... see...that is an example of what you are doing...and trying to say it is an attempt to understand..... its an attack, its offensive, and you know it is...that is why you posted it to begin with...

have a nice day..... I will waste no more time here

NOTE, to other posters: My gross generalization about antigun people is an example of what the OP did and tried to cover as an discussion, it is far from what I actually believe

Oh my god, another attack post!!! Didn't even see it coming. Watch out for these attack posts folks, they can creep up on you without notice. You're minding your own business drinking your coffee and WHAM, an attack post!!

Be sure you are strapped up and shoot your computer if you see one!!!!! Gotta defend yourself against these attack posts!!!

 

[Audie]

I say you have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree.

My admittedly very limited exposure to gun
owners in the USA was nothing like what
these would- be psychologists think.

Their words only say something about themselves and what looks to be a desire
to find omeone they can pose as being
superior to.


The gun owner were essentially hobhiests / collectors
much as someone with an enthusiasm for horses or cars or musical instruments.

 

[Wu Wei]

Wrong. In my OP I said many, not all. The fact you got so emotional and defensive lends credence to my point, that guns are more than just tools to many (again, not all) enthusiasts. It's a shame you've succombed succumbed to butt hurt butthurt rather than offer some thought and insight.

first, fixed that for you

you have no idea if I even own a gun...what I take offense to is your approach...the attack.... butt hurt..far from it..... and you know.... if you were actually trying to understand and not argue, accuse and be insulting.... you may have asked what my actual view was...but you didn't did you.... enjoy your arguing

 

[Wu Wei]

Oh my god, another attack post!!! Didn't even see it coming. Watch out for these attack posts folks, they can creep up on you without notice. You're minding your own business drinking your coffee and WHAM, an attack post!!

Be sure you are strapped up and shoot your computer if you see one!!!!! Gotta defend yourself against these attack posts!!!

nice, another that has no idea if I own a gun or not...or for that matter what my actual view is on gun laws and ownership....but, if you think that is a reason to use a gun...I pray to God you don't have one.....not a reason to use a gun now is it

see.... pro vs anti gun ownership posts and calling it a discussion makes about as much sense as saying let's have a Republican vs Democrat post and see if we can reach an understanding....to much emotion, and extremism on both sides of that...and not enough real discussion in a real attempt to actually fix anything

 

[Erebus]

Based on my outsider's perspective, it seems like two of the biggest factors in some people's love of guns are fear and binary thinking.

One of the most common arguments against gun control is that you might need a gun to protect yourself and others. People cite the possibility of encountering home invaders, muggers or mass shooters (ironically IMO). I actually have a bit of sympathy for this argument if I'm honest. It's a scary world out there after all. Statistics aren't especially comforting either. Yes, you have a much lower chance of being killed by a home invader than you do by your own gun but the home invader is a far more terrifying prospect.

Another argument is that guns are a right and it's always dangerous to let the government take your rights away. Again, there is actually something to that as the US government has a long history of human rights abuses. I think the argument falls apart pretty quickly (do you think your militia can take on the government and win?) but there's at least some justification for it.

As for binary thinking. Whenever the gun debate comes up, the staunch pro-gun crowd will make a couple of similar claims. Firstly that, "If you take away legal guns, criminals will just get them illegally." and secondly that, "Even if there were no guns at all, people would still murder each other." I struggled to wrap my head around this for a long time but I think I comprehend it better now. They're essentially arguing that bad things happening is just a fact of life and there's nothing you can do about it. Reducing the probability of people dying is irrelevant as even a single gun death means that the country still has gun deaths. It also divides the world roughly into "good people" and "bad people." Since it's only the bad people who use guns to kill, why should the good people be punished for it?

I've tried to be as fair as I can here but ultimately I find some Americans' insistence on keeping their guns difficult to defend. The pro-gun arguments strike me as significantly weaker than the anti-gun arguments.