Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Armed Citizens and the Stories They Tell

I found this in my travels:

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.”

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.

18 comments:

  1. It's hard to comment, since the full article is behind a pay wall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is one of the problems with only posting a link or a minor excerpt sometimes.

      It 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.

      Delete
    2. You wouldn't say anything worth hearing anyway, greg.

      But, I am sure if you really were some sort of academic that you could get a copy of it and read it.

      Delete
  2. Ooooh...snap!

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    I have this feeling that it is interesting reading and these two articles could be useful to the cause.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I had to add the abstract to Good Guys With Guns: Hegemonic Masculinity and Concealed Handguns Gender & Society April 1, 2012 26: 216-238

    ReplyDelete
  5. So 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?

    ReplyDelete
  6. P.S. the comment approval system is stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, it's worse than that, it is extra work for us.

      Unfortunately 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.

      Delete
    2. Then don't bloody comment!

      As for the small sample, you lot come here and confirm that her findings are probably accurate!

      Delete
    3. 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.

      Delete
    4. How much do you know about sampling? Any study needs to: (1) design an efficient sample,
      (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?

      Delete
    5. 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.

      "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.

      Delete
    6. 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.

      Delete
    7. 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".

      But these clowns see stuff that just isn't there.

      Delete
    8. "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"."

      Well 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.

      Delete
    9. Hardly, Jim, I have repeated that the Majorities in Heller-McDonald decisions said:

      Like 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?

      Delete
    10. 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.

      Can 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?

      Delete