I hate to say it for fear of offending people, but the more pictures I see of gun owners, the more I think we were right in the very beginning. These are fearful, insecure people who need guns to feel OK.The U.S. reportedly has the highest concentration of private gun ownership in the world. It is estimated that Americans buy more than half of all the guns that are manufactured worldwide each year. We wrote a good bit about guns in Freakonomics — primarily about the lack of efficacy of gun-control laws and gun buybacks on the crime rate — and we’ve also blogged on the subject now and again.
It wouldn't be so bad if it were a live-and-let-live kind of thing. But the downside of all this gun ownership is devastating. It's like a non-terminal cancer gnawing away from the inside.
What's your opinion. Please leave a comment.
"It's like a non-terminal cancer gnawing away from the inside."
ReplyDeleteIt's plenty terminal for thousands of people in this country every year.
Armed America is one of the best arguments for gun control. Instead of making gun owners appear "normal" we have images produced by someone who does "fetish Photography". The picture you have reminds me of an armed version of the Addams Family, which in itself is a frightening concept. Does Lurch have a Barrett light 50?
ReplyDeleteCassidy doesn’t realise that while one picture may be worth a thousand words, there are some things that are better left unsaid.
Since Cassidy usually takes fetish photographs, his oeuvre comes off as a Diane Arbus piece with guns.
And we know the freaks that were Diane’s subjects.
If these people are normal, I’d rather be a freak for the rest of my life.
http://captainpurplehead.blogs.ie/2008/10/14/mccain-palin-are-against-gun-control/
First, I'd take issue with the meme that the US has the "highest concentration" of gun ownership in the world. You can certainly argue we have the most guns but the fact remains 20% of the US population owns 80% of the guns. Thus, gun ownership in the US--WRT concentration--is fairly localized and small.
ReplyDeleteSecond, as I've sagely noted before, guns serve as a proxy for respect among those who have failed to earn it any other way.
Think about it.
How does one earn respect? There are a number of ways, usually involving some degree of success or accomplishment in a career or academic achievement or having a rich social or family life.
Gunloons are generally folks who--for whatever reason--have failed to achieve this sense of accomplishment or success. They look around and see folks who have good careers and/or personal lives and are envious. To compensate, a gun represents a sense of power that they believe commands respect.
Small children like to dress up as superheroes or cowboys or whatever because they are powerless. Role-playing provides at least an illusion of power.
Gunloons confuse respect with an illusion of power. Their deep sense is that though they may not possess success, achievement or personal satisfaction--they have a weapon capable of destroying what others have.
Wow, so much judging.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about Freakonomics is that both Mike and Dog Gone have cited it positively regarding their conclusions on abortion. But did you know what they said about gun control? It is not like you can claim they are pro-gun bias.
only more 59 days till blood in the streets in PA........
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=15275
If I recall, Armed America does a good job of stereotyping gun owners. Most if not all of the guns pictured are relatively inexpensive. Most are common and fairly boring. And its a pretty narrow cross section of people. I can't tell whether the photographer had trouble finding willing subjects or whether he had to pay people to volunteer.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative is that gun owners are generally white, less educated, rural, truck owning idiots. People cling to that story without thinking about it at all.
BTW - If that were the case, a significant portion of guns sold would not be over $1000, let alone over $10,000. Sure lower grade guns go for less, but a significant portion are made for the high end. Heck, a half way decent 1911 handgun is well over $1500. Custom over $3000. Engrave it for another $1000. And this is for a handgun. You ought to see what hand made custom shotguns go for.
Unlike the 'narrative' and the humorous belittling, gun ownership crosses all demographics, all professions, all education levels, and are common both in rural and urban environments. They are your neighbors, your friends, your associates.
"Armed America" plays into the narrative but is hardly accurate.
TS, you're correct that I admire the authors of Freakonomics and their approach to analysis.
ReplyDeleteThank you for such an insightful and well informed comment.
Had you seen this interview done by those authors about Armed America?
http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/09/10/guns-in-america/
This completely contradicts the assertion by 'Anonymous' about the book and the author.
While I concur with the Freakonomics authors that our current gun contol is ineffective, it does not logically follow that we should abandon gun control as a means of reducing firearm violence.
It does mean that we should correct the glaring flaws in our gun control - such as the lack of names provided by far too many states to the NCIS, and the gun show loop holes to checks.
I have other issues with what I perceive as cherry picking data (not you TS but others - I did a quick search to make sure I was current with the mor recent things written pro and con re armed america, and the freakonomics guys).
TS: Actually, John Lott accused Leavitt of being "rabidly anti-gun."
ReplyDeleteOf course, that was Lott, who has been known to have an aversion to the truth thing.
Anon: You're confusing the purchase of expensive goods with wealth and success. Go to a trailer park sometime; I'll bet you find some pretty high-end trucks and cars there. I'm sure you know folks who can barely make the rent but still drive the latest hot sportscar or hit Las Vegas several times a year.
It's a matter of priorities--and for gunloons the illusion of respect is a pretty powerful priority.
DG raises an excellent point--because current gun control laws are ineffective does not mean gun control is ineffective.
ReplyDeleteWhat it means is current laws aren't working. It doesn't mean we do away with gun control.
Imagine if we applied this gunloon logic to, say, medicine. Let's say you're sick and the doctor gives you some medicine--but it doesn't work. Per gunloon logic this means all medicine doesn't work and you should revert to praying for health.
Anon sez:
ReplyDeleteIf I recall, Armed America does a good job of stereotyping gun owners.
Wow, Cassidy would be pretty disappointed to hear you make that comment since he was trying to show gun owners as "normal". I am not disappointed since he fails pretty miserably in that goal and the boook made it to the reaminder pile fairly quickly.
I should also add that Cassidy and Oleg Volk are fairly chummy in the fetish photography/gun nut aspects.
You may want to think twice before posting something from Volk since he is as bad as Cassidy in my opinion.
http://www.armedamerica.org/
"It wouldn't be so bad if it were a live-and-let-live kind of thing."
ReplyDeleteThe only reason it's not a live-and-let-lice kind of thing is because gun controllers/banners refuse to live-and-let-live.
The only reason it's not a live-and-let-lice kind of thing is because gun controllers/banners refuse to live-and-let-live.
ReplyDeleteJune 30, 2011 12:34 AM
Um, wrong; never mind the apparent freudian slip of "live and let lice".
The reason so many people are a tad bit concerned about having SOME sort of EFFECTIVE firearms regulation in a lot of states is that pesky 5 figure number of gunicides every year. Eliminate the dead and wounded and there wouldn't be a problem.
Jade: “Actually, John Lott accused Leavitt of being ‘rabidly anti-gun.’”
ReplyDeleteJade, why did you say “actually” as if you were correcting me? I said you can’t call them pro-gun, so you cited someone who took it further by calling them “rabidly anti-gun”. So? Is it just that you have to start all your sentences with “Actually,…”?
Dog gone, so it seems one point where we can all agree is that nothing gun control has done so far has had a positive effect anywhere. The thing is that includes all kinds of bans from “assault weapons” to even total handgun bans. So can we please take the bans off the table? I am unconvinced that more background checks are going to do any good when the background checks we do have haven’t done squat, but as long as it is cheap and fast I really can’t complain. So if we do cheap and fast background checks applied to all sales, while ceasing to pursue any bans (magazines included), and repeal some existing bans- can we put this issue to bed regardless of the results?
As a side note, would you say the Brady Campaign is ignorant or manipulative when they release their scorecard and claim the existing gun laws are working?
Jade, with regard to your medicine analogy- the problem is no gun control has worked. It is not that some gun control works, and other doesn’t, so let’s use the things that work. No, I am afraid gun control has been the bloodletting of medicine.
This completely contradicts the assertion by 'Anonymous' about the book and the author.
ReplyDeleteI read the article. I doesn't refute my assertion. Its a big cross section of owners; he caught a sliver of volunteers.
Might I suggest you try and view some videos on the latest SHOT show, NRA convention, duck hunting club event, etc? You'll begin to see a wider cross section.
Might I suggest you look into the cost of long range shooting. cowboy shootings, 3 gun etc. These venues aren't inexpensive.
Many people spend close to 10k/year on ammo alone
My pheasant club has a membership equivalent to my golf club dues. My self defense training grounds of choice reside at Front Sight. The lifetime membership was close to 6 figures. 1000's of people go to these yearly.
Most of my friends who shoot are engineers, attorneys, doctors, and a judge. You see any of those in this book you take as gospel?
Gunloons are generally folks who--for whatever reason--have failed to achieve this sense of accomplishment or success. They look around and see folks who have good careers and/or personal lives and are envious.
Sure. Black people have natural rythm and are intrinsically criminals. Jews are cheapskates and woman or Asians are bad drivers.
You're a bigot Jade and your comments are just as bad. Mike apparently agrees since he allows the posts to stay but I can see why you get banned from other people's sites.
Anon: You're confusing the purchase of expensive goods with wealth and success.
Am I? At my pay rate, I wouldn't send my secretary to a trailer park. Let me guess, you make under $100/hour. Your definition of success would probably be far different then mine. LOL.
I'm sure you know folks who can barely make the rent but still drive the latest hot sportscar or hit Las Vegas several times a year.
I'm sure you know such folk, but that wouldn't be me. I don't associate with what I call the dysfunctional portion of America. But more to the point, I think you'll find poor people such as you describe generally do not vote.
Which wouldn't explain the 94 election. Or other elections where gun rights have come into play.
You naively believe a certain narrative as an attempt to marginalize other people who may be smarter, more educated, and more well off. Learn to test your assumptions and bias.
I think Jadegold is more right than wrong in stereotyping gun owners the way he does.
ReplyDeleteI love what Laci often says. "There IS NO gun control in America."
I think Jadegold is more right than wrong in stereotyping gun owners the way he does.
ReplyDeleteThat just reinforces your own personal bias but isn't remotely honest.
It would be easy for me to stereotype non-gun owners, or proponents of gun control. Easy and there's plenty of terms, analogies, etc that can be found on various sites.
There's even peer reviewed studies from psychologists on the potential mental disorders from those who believe the way you do.
I don't use any because it isn't positive in discussion. I suggest you do the same.
Actually, TS, gun control *has* worked. I'd cite examples such as NYC, where you have a large urban area with relatively low gun crime.
ReplyDeleteFurther, we can see from international examples that gun control can work.
The primary problems with our gun control, in the US, is that what laws there are have been made largely unenforceable by NRA lobbying. Second, there is a wide disparity in laws from one jurisdiction to the other.
"There's even peer reviewed studies from psychologists on the potential mental disorders from those who believe the way you do."
Actually, no. I understand you wish to cite Dr. Sarah Thompson but she is neither peer-reviewed nor considered anything but a crank by her peers.
MikeB: “I love what Laci often says. ‘There IS NO gun control in America.’”
ReplyDeleteI’ll repeat my question: would you say the Brady Campaign is ignorant or manipulative when they release their scorecard and claim the existing gun laws are working?
Jade: “Actually, TS, gun control *has* worked.”
ReplyDeleteOk, so you stand is disagreement with Levitt & Dubner (Freakonomics), Laci, MikeB and Dog Gone. It is nice to see you disagree every now and then.
Oops, then again you did say this:
ReplyDeleteJadegold: “We have no gun control. Period. End of story. Full stop.”
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=8764083515346908998
So that is the “no gun control” that worked so well in NYC (mind you it took 100 years after being enacted to lower the crime rates).
Dr. Sarah Thompson
ReplyDeleteActually I have no idea who that is but try again. And it still doesn't help your cause by the attempt to marginalize gun owners into 'certain' demographics, or by stereotyping.
I don't call gun control advocates hoplophobes, previous victims or potential victims, ignorant sheeple, control fedishers, dysfunctional soccer moms, or suburbanites with zero understanding of criminal behavior, etc because I know it can be taken as an insult (though from my perspective one of the above often fits).
Most of us share the same goal to reduce gun violence. The difference is in methodology. I see education, improving social conditions, making people self reliant for their own safety as a means to that end. I see gun control a quick fix; a scapegoat if you will, that penalizes the vast majority of us who do nothing wrong without addressing underlying causes of violence in general. Dems fortunately are concentrating on other underlying issues these days and I'll wager we'll see gun violence continue to drop.
It may feed your accepted narrative, but its hardly the truth. That may be impossible to get through to you and Mike since the postings here tend to reinforce the same belief.
If most gun owners fell into the stereotypes you seem to pontificate, we would already have the types of gun control legislation you desire. We don't and most likely never will.
So in my opinion the commonly held narrative misses the boat by a wide margin.
Instead of making gun owners appear "normal" we have images produced by someone who does "fetish Photography"
Agree and probably why it didn't sell. Given the millions of gun owners out there, so few related to the pictures that it wasn't commercially viable. If Armed America had managed to persuade some of the more famous collectors (who tend to enjoy their privacy) it would have sold more copy. George Lucas for instance has hundreds of firearms in his collection. Might have even paid a premium for a glimpse into Judge Thomas or Judge Scalia's vaults.
Anonymous, You sound like a pretty interesting guy. Would you please give youself a name so we don't confuse you with the several other anonymouses who are anything but interesting?
ReplyDelete