The Psychology of Gun Ownership

[SecularMotion]

Several studies conducted in recent years have given us great insight into the psychology of gun ownership; meaning the beliefs and behaviors frequently exhibited by gun owners and the motivations behind them keeping weapons.

As it turns out, cultural context, racial biases, political affiliation, and anger issues are all related to gun ownership. Here’s a sampling of some of the exciting research that’s out there:

Those who own guns tend to be part of a “social gun culture.” In a 2015 study, Bindu Kalesan, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, found that there is a strong association between exposure to social gun culture and gun ownership. According to Dr. Kalesan’s research, the average gun-owning America is “white, married or divorced, high income, and over 55 years old.” The social gun culture includes “unseen codes of behaviour and powerful predictors of behavioural intentions and health behaviours.”

Men who carry guns suffer from a “crisis of confidence.” Jennifer Carlson, author of “Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline,” explained in a recent op-ed why men feel the need to carry guns in public. One man told Carson he felt “naked” without his gun. Carlson found that men might carry guns in public “as a reaction to broader socioeconomic decline” or because carrying a gun is seen as a “masculine duty.” Psychologically, carrying a gun can help men “address social insecurities far beyond crime.” Carlson concluded by noting, “The gun rights platform is not just about guns. It’s also about a crisis of confidence in the American dream. And this is one reason gun control efforts ignite such intense backlashes: Restrictions are received as a personal affront to men who find in guns a sense of duty, relevance and even dignity.”

http://csgv.org/blog/2015/psychology-gun-ownership/

[ileus]

1. Guns kill people....donjaknow.

[gejohnston]

2. sounds like projection and bullshit

Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

btw, the guy that runs that fine org is a liar.

[flamin lib]

7. Really? You have moles in that org too? nt

[Eleanors38]

11. Seems preoccupied with men. Not much said re 18,000,000+ women gun-owners.

[beevul]

3. CSGV? Really?

You're propping up this group, that attacked a Democrat? Swell:

"Gun Control group (CSGV)caught using selective editing in a attack ad against John Barrow (D)GA"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172104844

Anti-gun group misfires in attack on Barrow

Even more egregious, the coalition chose to selectively edit Barrow’s original statements, leaving out key elements that helped explain the congressman’s stance on gun rights. By leaving those parts out, the coalition changes Barrow’s central message supporting gun ownership for protection and self-defense.

The group attempted to target Barrow with a highly emotional ad. But it comes across as the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

The coalition gets our lowest rating on this one. Pants On Fire.

Pants on fire. How...unsurprising.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jan/25/coalition-stop-gun-violence/anti-gun-group-misfires-attack-barrow/

If that wasn't enough:

Everyone remember this?

"The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down."

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/cincipost5_7_04.cfm


It turns out THE CSGV INSERTED that quote into the article posted at the above link.

Heres a link to the original article.

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/05/07/weap050704.html

Nowhere in that original article does it say :

"The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down."


Heres a link to the original discussion of their antics, since the original links appear broken:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x59854

The irony, is that in the original thread, your anti-gun buddies chastise others for attacking a Democrat, and now you're posting in support of a group that did just that.


Are you as proud to stand with CSGV as you are to stand with bloombergs astroturf groups?

[SecularMotion]

4. Thanks for the kick!

[beevul]

5. My pleasure. N/T

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. "Thanks for the kick!"

You left out, "in the pants".

[Eleanors38]

8. nothing here.nt

[SecularMotion]

9. Thanks for stopping in, Ellie.

[Eleanors38]

10. Thanks, secur.

[Eleanors38]

12. Psychology. The go to SCIENCE! in duh culture wars...

Never has a field of study had its archane terminology appropriated so completely to condemn vast numbers in prohibition campaigns.



Glad gynecology wasn't chosen for this endeavor.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. I found an article on psychological profiles too!

What turns someone into a conspiracy theorist? Study to look at why some are more 'receptive' to such theories

Conspiracy theorists aren’t "mad" they just have certain “intellectual character traits” that make them believe certain things, a professor has said.

Quassim Cassam, a professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick, has launched a new study into what makes people believe in certain theories – and why such theories could push people to extremes such as joining Isis.

He believes that some people are more vulnerable to “intellectual vices” such as dogmatism, gullibility and close mindedness and this in turn makes them more likely to listen to extreme "alternative" sources of information.

Here's the link -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/113510412

Whoops, my bad. Wrong link.

Here's the actual link to the article -- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-turns-someone-into-a-conspiracy-theorist-study-to-look-at-why-some-are-more-receptive-to-such-theories-10427940.html

[beergood]

14. this seems like an appropriate response.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Claims of a "targeted" lightning strike? Not all that different from their other posts