Armed Citizens and the Stories They Tell The National Rifle Association's Achievement of Terror and Masculinity, Kevin Lewis O'Neill, Stanford University, Men and Masculinities April 2007 vol. 9 no. 4 457-475
Abstract
Since 1926, the National Rifle Association's
(NRA) flagship publication has without pause featured “The Armed
Citizen,” a
column that reports instances in which
law-abiding citizens have successfully defended their property, person,
and/or family
with firearms. These reports are brief (100 to
200 words) and have remained remarkably untouched over the past 80 years
with
regard to style, diction, and narrative
structure. Their rhetorical effect, however, has not. In 1977, the year
the NRA became
a social movement, these narratives began to
contribute to the production of a terror-filled, deeply masculine (and
surprisingly
biblical) NRA discourse that led (and continues
to lead) to the mobilization of its members to defend the right to keep
and
bear arms in the face of extraordinary public
opposition: to perpetuate what has come to be known as the “gun-control
paradox.”
Articles citing this article
Good Guys With Guns: Hegemonic Masculinity and Concealed Handguns Gender & Society April 1, 2012 26: 216-238
Abstract
In most states in the U.S. it is legal to
carry a concealed handgun in public, but little is known about why
people want to
do this. While the existing literature argues that
guns symbolize masculinity, most research on the actual use of guns has
focused on marginalized men. The issue of concealed
handguns is interesting because they must remain concealed and because
relatively privileged men are most likely to have a
license to carry one. Using in-depth interviews with 20 men, this
article
explores how they draw on discourses of masculinity
to explain their use of concealed handguns. These men claim that they
are motivated by a desire to protect their wives
and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend
themselves against people and places they perceive
as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men.
These
findings suggest that part of the appeal of
carrying a concealed firearm is that it allows men to identify with
hegemonic
masculinity through fantasies of violence and
self-defense.
It's hard to comment, since the full article is behind a pay wall.
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the problems with only posting a link or a minor excerpt sometimes.
DeleteIt is one of the advantages to posting a full article, where that is feasible - more is read, and it makes it clear that the poster is not cherry picking the content so as to mislead the reader by misrepresenting the original material.
You wouldn't say anything worth hearing anyway, greg.
DeleteBut, I am sure if you really were some sort of academic that you could get a copy of it and read it.
Ooooh...snap!
ReplyDeleteThe basic takeaway: men who need to carry firearms do so out of a fear of losing perceived masculinity and fears of minorities.
It's what I've sagely noted all along: gunloons are largely driven by a lack of professional/social success and see firearms as compensating for the "respect" they cannot or are unable to earn.
Alas, I need to have a sub to the service to get the full article, but I posted the abstract since someone out there could get the full article.
ReplyDeleteI have this feeling that it is interesting reading and these two articles could be useful to the cause.
I had to add the abstract to Good Guys With Guns: Hegemonic Masculinity and Concealed Handguns Gender & Society April 1, 2012 26: 216-238
ReplyDeleteSo the report is based on statements made by just 20 men? Doesn't that seem like a much too small sample to base any general conclusions?
ReplyDeleteP.S. the comment approval system is stupid.
ReplyDeleteOh, it's worse than that, it is extra work for us.
DeleteUnfortunately some of your fellow commenters do not play by rules, and fail to conduct themselves properly, making it the lesser of an assortment of evils.
The blame is squarely on the gun loons.
Then don't bloody comment!
DeleteAs for the small sample, you lot come here and confirm that her findings are probably accurate!
Laci - only sampling the comments made here by gun owners (which I am not a gun owner) would be an even smaller sample size than the 20 people they interviewed.
DeleteHow much do you know about sampling? Any study needs to: (1) design an efficient sample,
Delete(2) measure the sufficiency of the evidential matter obtained, and
(3) quantitatively evaluate the sample results.
That's what peer review is about.
These studies are peer reviewed for accuracy in any proper academic situation.
If you are not a gun owner, why do you care about gun regulation?
As far as the sampling goes, I am just being intuitive like Mikeb likes to do. It just makes sense to me that 20 men is not a sufficent sample size to base opinions on the millions of male gun owners in this country.
Delete"If you are not a gun owner, why do you care about gun regulation?"
Because I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. I don't write for a newspaper, but I support the first amendment rights of the press and would oppose regulations that I feel went against their guaranteed freedoms.
Jim, did you say you are not a gun owner? Yet, you align yourself with the gun-rights crowd? I find that fascinating and wonder how many like you there are.
DeleteThat's because he's bought into the nonsense about the Second Amendment having something to do with "gun rights", not "a well-regulated militia".
DeleteBut these clowns see stuff that just isn't there.
"That's because he's bought into the nonsense about the Second Amendment having something to do with "gun rights", not "a well-regulated militia"."
DeleteWell it seems my nonsense is more inline with the current law as decided by the Supreme Court than your nonsense on the right to keep and bear arms being limited to militia members.
Hardly, Jim, I have repeated that the Majorities in Heller-McDonald decisions said:
DeleteLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
In fact, the pronouncement is incredibly limited to "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Given that the majority position is based upon very a shaky legal basis, I wouldn't really rely upon it for backing up any sort of personal right. In fact, there is a much stronger argument to be made for following the Stevens' dissent in Heller.
McDonald was pure bullshit since the Second Amendment relates to Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16--not State functions.
But, Jimmy, I am curious as to the extent of your knowledge of actual legal practise for you to make such bold pronouncements?
My extent of legal practise is common sense. I am sure you can point to the part in Heller or McDonald where the right to own guns was limited to milita members only. That would prove to me that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct.
DeleteCan the right to keep and bear arms be limited? Yes it can. But those limits are up for debate and currently it seems more states are moving to liberalize their policies on who can carry guns in public and where all they can carry them. You do agree that states have the right to liberalize their gun policies correct?