Can Faith Moderate US Gun Culture? Studies Link Religion to Lower Devotion to Firearms

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/can-faith-moderate-us-gun_b_6155098.html

David Briggs
Writer, Association of Religion Data Archives

Posted: 11/14/2014 8:41 am EST Updated: 21 minutes ago

President Obama fed the stereotype of the relationship between faith and firearms in 2008 when he spoke of people in small towns who get bitter over the lack of progress in their lives. "They cling to guns or religion ... [as] a way to explain their frustrations," he said.

Rallying her troops in 2012, GOP activist Sarah Palin declared, "We say keep your change, we'll keep our God, our guns, our constitution."

Both may have taken the name of the divine in vain.

Two new studies indicate that greater personal faith predicts lower attachment to guns and lower levels of gun ownership.

more at link

[NYC_SKP]

1. Kind shoots a hole in the old sayings like, "God Guts and Glory" and "Clinging"...

I always thought it was a bit of subtle bigotry to tie middle Americans' faith to gun ownership.

But you know how it rolls...

[cbayer]

2. I think it will surprise a lot of people.

There seems to be little correlation between gun ownership and anything at all. The people I know who are RKBA proponents are all over the place politically, religiously, etc.

[unrepentant progress]

6. Gun ownership was viewed quite differently in mid-century America

It's fascinating how American's views about guns and gun ownership have changed over the years. Before the NRA transformed into a near-terrorist organization, and before Ronald Reagan initiated the modern era of gun control because he was afraid of black people with guns, it was portrayed anywhere from neutrally to a fun family activity. And this was an era when gun violence was much higher than it is today.

Here's a small album I put together of mid-century ads depicting gun ownership in family-friendly terms: http://imgur.com/a/dnbXB

[pinto]

8. My dad was an avid competitive target shooter and pretty much areligious. Yet we were $ comfortable.

And gun ownership wasn't fear based. Both points that seem to be reflected in the studies.

(He went to shooting competitions around the state, packed his own shells, broke down and cleaned his rifles regularly, the whole nine yards. It was a sport. One he really liked. And all equipment and the maintenance work was done in a workroom at the back of our garage. Locked at all times unless he was present.)

[unrepentant progress]

11. Exactly

I think the present day liberal myths about guns and gun owners are themselves reactions to the paranoid fantasies crafted by the John Birchers and other far right crank organizations including the transformed NRA. But it's very hard now to get lefties to put aside the hobbyists, ethusiasts, sportsmen, and collectors, from the paranoid cranks.

[pinto]

12. What do you think about the idea that faith based groups could play a role in the 2nd Amend debates?

Or should they? It's an interesting take.

[unrepentant progress]

14. I honestly don't know

The whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment has become so clouded that I'm not sure it's possible for any group to become meaningfully involved in the debate. And that's largely because I think the 2nd Amendment is a red herring, especially since the two sides are having two different arguments.

On the right, we have manufactured paranoid conspiracies designed to weaken support for government. Recontextualizing the 2nd Amendment is just part of the strategy.

On the left, we have what amounts to a moral panic concerning gun violence. I say moral panic because by all objective measures gun violence, indeed all violent crime, has been declining for decades. The best theory is that it's due to removing lead from gasoline and paint rather than any given policy. Of course statistics don't help you if you live in a neighborhood plagued by gun violence. They argue against the right wing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment simply because the right has put it out there.

I'd like to believe education about the statistics, as well has history of gun violence and control in America would have a positive effect, but the deficit model of education never works. At least not when ideologies and morality are involved.

[AlbertCat]

19. Shooting's fun for everyone!

Except of course for whatever is being shot at.

[NYC_SKP]

28. The nice thing about tolerance for others is that one doesn't have to agree with others' viewpoints.

Acceptance and tolerance without derision and insult is a sign of a truly evolved mind.

I accept and tolerate your point of view about guns and religion.

[cbayer]

31. But that isn't nearly as much fun as mocking and ridiculing others,

particularly if you can do it in a way that they can't' respond or defend themselves.

And isn't fun what a truly evolved mind is all about, particularly fun at someone else's expense?

Get with the program. He's about to get some brownie points, maybe even a promotion.

[cbayer]

21. What a great album.

I've never seen any of those before.

I particularly like this one:

[unrepentant progress]

22. That one's from an old Sears catalog

It really evokes Normal Rockwell.

[cbayer]

23. It does look like Rockwell. Sears?

I was never in the gun culture. I went to Sears for cheap clothes and camping supplies, but never a weapon.

[trotsky]

3. Sure.

[trotsky]

4. Yup.

http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/god-and-guns-podcast

[trotsky]

5. Totally.

[pinto]

7. Interesting correlation made between economic "disenfranchisement" and the role of weaponry.

And the political morphing of guns and religion in public perception and among politicians themselves.

[AlbertCat]

9. DEVOTION to guns!!!! ATTACHMENT LEVELS to guns...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I guess there's only so much devotion and attachment to delusions to divvy up.

(Well, at least guns exist)

I suppose this is to refute the true "clinging to religion and guns" statement.... but y'know

Just because some might cling to one delusion a little more than another doesn't mean there's no clinging going on.

[pinto]

10. Did you read more than the 1st 4 paragraphs?

There's a range of conclusions from the studies. Some a little vague to me but some really interesting.

[AlbertCat]

13. I did read the whole thing.

I don't find it so very interesting, nor do I find the (early) conclusions the article harps on so very unbiased.

The opening anti-Obama/ GOP talking point paragraph sets the tone and makes me not take the rest of this slight summary too seriously. This supposed meme of "religious people are really into guns," is one I don't know anybody reveres. It's not what the "clinging" statement means either. That is about people simplifying they complex problems with simplified solutions that are not gonna work. This very "study" sorta supports that.

[pinto]

15. I think part of the points being made are just that - it's a complex set of things.

Not one simplistic picture.

[cbayer]

16. Can you tell me why you persist in using the term delusion

even though you are aware that it is offensive and can be hurtful not only to religious believers, but people with true psychiatric illness?

Are there other slurs that you toss around in groups where it has been made clear that the words you are using are strongly objected to?

Do you do this irl?

I'm guessing that there are terms that you find offensive. If people around you continued to use them despite your raising an objection, how would you respond?

[trotsky]

17. I dunno, cbayer. You like to use the term "anti-theist" in a way hurtful to atheists...

and don't seem to have any qualms about doing so. How about you lead by example?

[AlbertCat]

18. Can you tell me why you persist in using the term delusion

Because it's the word with the meaning I want.

It's not a dirty word.

If you have a problem with a perfectly normal word that is not a pejorative, then that is your problem.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[cbayer]

20. I don't persist in using it, so I'm not sure what you mean.

You don't think it's a dirty word, but what about those that do?

It's highly pejorative and there is no way you can seriously make the case that it is not. You use the word with the meaning you want and you mean it as an insult, at the very least. To say it is not pejorative is highly specious.

There are other words that others think are perfectly normal and not pejorative. Some of them are appled to GLBT people. Some of them are applied to black people. Some of them are applied to women.

As I recall you are a member of a group which is attacked with similar kinds of slurs frequently. Do you really think that's ok?

I guess if others use them around you after you have objected, that's just your problem, right?

Surely you are not that insensitive.

All I can surmise from your last statement is that you think my objection ironically leads to an increase in the use of the word. I don't doubt that, as there are those who make it their business to react blindly to pretty much anything I say, sometimes to my face but often not.

Are you one of those people?

[AlbertCat]

24. You don't think it's a dirty word, but what about those that do?

They're delusional.

[cbayer]

25. You aren't even humorous.

I guess you are delusional too, because there are a lot of words you probably think are "dirty" that others don't.

I'd bet on it.

Don't forget to go back to A/A and mock this exchange.

I'd bet on that, too.

[AlbertCat]

27. Don't forget to go back to A/A and mock this exchange.

I already have.... it's why I come here, to see what baloney you guys are up to now!


And you aren't even worth taking seriously on this issue. We all know you aren't that thin skinned.

Just a thread hijacker.

[cbayer]

29. Not worth taking seriously. Just a thread hijacker.

Nice.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. When trading insults it is best to not be the first to stomp out in an upset.

[rug]

38. And the first to use ignore loses.

[skepticscott]

40. Tell you what, cbayer...when you show the same indignation

towards the people who habitually fling the very pejorative word "bigot" at atheists in this group, then maybe you'll earn the right to be taken seriously here. As is stands, this smacks of a really lame double standard (again).

I'm guessing we won't see you taking that stand. But you're welcome to prove me wrong.

[hrmjustin]

35. Thanks Cbayer!

I detest the whole deluded argument.

[cbayer]

42. It's an argument that says much more about those that use it than those it

is aimed at.

[hrmjustin]

43. Agreed!

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. OED definition for delusion:

The action of deluding; the condition of being deluded.
1. The action of befooling, mocking, or cheating a person in his expectations; the fact of being so cheated or mocked. (Obsolete)
2. The action of befooling with false impressions or beliefs; the fact or condition of being cheated and led to believe what is false.
3. a. Anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement.
b. A fixed penchant for something. U.S.
Derivation: Latin dēlūsion-em, noun of action from dēlūdĕre to delude v.: see -ion suffix1. (Compare rare obsolete French delusion, 16th cent. in Godefroy)

Deluded:
Deceived by mocking prospects, beguiled, misled: see the verb.

Delude:
1. a. a. trans. To play with (any one) to his injury or frustration, under pretence of acting seriously; to mock, esp. in hopes, expectations, or purposes; to cheat or disappoint the hopes of. (Obsolete)
b. To disappoint or deprive of by fraud or deceit; to defraud of.
2. To deride, mock, laugh at. (Obsolete, rare)
3. a. To befool the mind or judgement of, so as to cause what is false to be accepted as true; to bring by deceit into a false opinion or belief; to cheat, deceive, beguile; to impose upon with false impressions or notions.
b. with complement (on, to, into).
4. To frustrate the aim or purpose of; to elude, evade. (Obsolete)
5. To beguile (time). (Obsolete)
Derivation: Latin dēlūdĕre to play false, mock, deceive, < de- prefix 1d + lūdere to play.

There are many uses of the words to do with falsity, fraud, mockery and deceiving, that date back to the 16th century, or occasionally earlier. This includes a quote from the Tyndale bible, which I see is still there in modern versions:

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=delusion&qs_version=NIV

There's just one about 'mental derangement'.

'Delusion' does not just have a psychiatric meaning. If you say something is 'a snare and a delusion', you are not making a reference to psychiatric illness.

[cbayer]

50. True, but some that use the word around here are using it to attack.

You know that and no number of OED definitions is going to change that.

I could also post definitions of militant, evangelist, proselytizing and bigot and show how those words can be used very appropriately to describe some of the attitudes and behaviors expressed around here. I could also find some other terms that have both psychiatric and colloquial uses and could easily apply them to non-believers and blow any negative response off as an over-reaction.

That's not really the point, though. We can have a discussion about semantics and definitions, or we can take a stand against those who would use a broad brush to paint 88% of the world as psychiatrically diseased.

Because that is exactly what they mean.

Oh, and the use in the bible was clearly way, way before this became a psychiatric term and is completely and totally irrelevant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. You're saying that you get to pick the definition when someone else uses it

You get to say what they mean. You get to say they mean the psychiatric meaning, and then you get to berate them for using the psychiatric meaning.

There is no way I will join you in your stand of claiming to be the sole arbiter in what people mean, and then attacking them for your claims of what they mean.

The biblical use is still in modern translations. That's why that is relevant. The bible gets to continue using the classic meaning, but you think you can say that other people can't do that, if you feel like it.

[cbayer]

52. No, I am not saying that at all.

I am saying that there are some people who have made it very clear how they are using the word. They have offered the definition and they have said what they mean. They have made no bones about it. I don't berate or attack. I challenge. It's an ugly and bigoted thing to say and I will not let it stand.

I'm not the sole arbiter. There are many, many people here who find this offensive and would like to see it stop. I don't really expect you to join in the request to stop it, but defending it is another thing entirely.

The bible was written at a time when the word had a different meaning. If the members here were using it in that way, it might be acceptable. But they are not. Did you miss the whole thread in AA about religion and mental illness? Or the one about religious people being delusional?

Stop making this so personal and stop telling me what I am doing. You can generally discuss at a higher level than that.

[trotsky]

54. Then attack THOSE PEOPLE, cbayer.

But you don't. I, for instance, have never said that all believers are mentally ill. I've never used the word "delusion" to mean anything but a false or mistaken belief. But you broadbrush and attack an unspecified group of people just so you can smear them.

It's disgusting and you should also be able to discuss at a higher level than that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. You made it personal in #16

You were telling AlbertCat what they were doing.

[cbayer]

56. So what? Did I make it personal with you?

I'm not saying that I never do that. I certainly do, particularly with some people who I think are just here to stir shit and attack others.

But I don't generally do that with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. So it's OK for you to get personal with someone else, but you think only they can get personal

with you, and then only once you've got personal with them?

Privilege, thy name is cbayer.

[cbayer]

58. No. Could you please stop telling me what I think and stop calling me names.

What is with you?

There are a few members that are consistently hostile with me. They make it personal both here in in the A & A group. I could say that the sky is blue and they would find some way to twist it around into something really bad and will carry it around for years, distorting it to such a degree over time that it becomes unrecognizable.

With some of them I get personal right back. This has nothing to do with privilege, and I think your resorting to that kind of snark really doesn't suit you. It has to do with my right to defend myself.

You are generally not one of those people and I don't make it personal with you.

But if you think that making it personal with someone (me) is just dandy because of (insert whatever privilege you think justifies it here), then the only thing I can offer is a mirror.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. This has arisen because, starting in #16, you got personal with a DUer and told them what they meant

When I have objected to that, you have claimed that I (and, therefore, as far as I can see, everyone except the DUer you decided to get personal with) have no right to get personal with you. You want everything your way. You think you get to decide on the meaning of other people's posts, that you get to decide when getting personal is OK, and when it has to stop.

That's why this is about the privilege you think you are owed.

[cbayer]

60. Are you the "making it personal" police or do you just restrict that job to

people you don't agree with?

I'm asking you to not make it personal with me. There is no need for it and I don't do it to you.

You continue to tell me what i have decided, what I want, what I think and what I decide. All of this in one short post.

That's just your opinion of me, not reality, and I think it is you that are exercising privilege at this point.

Based on what you say in this post, it seems clear that you don't like me. That's fine. I don't have to make it personal with you because, while I strongly disagree with some of your positions on things, I don't hold any animosity towards you.

But if you continue to make it personal, and with each post you seem to make it more and more so, then it might become something different.

And at least for me, that would be unfortunate.

[trotsky]

61. Aren't you kind of making that your job?

That's been the point here, cbayer. Obviously given your reaction, this has hit really close to home for you.

[trotsky]

53. Thank you, muriel. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Hmmm, I'm confused...

Do I need to go out and buy guns, or go join a church? Obviously I'm doing something wrong.

[cbayer]

30. You don't need to do either or you could do both.

It's a free country!

[NYC_SKP]

32. OMG, Unconventional Wisdom! This is gonna leave marks, ruffle some feathers!

.
"Conventional Wisdom", at least in some circles, tells us that liberals/progressives reject religions and guns, and that if must follow that fondness of these things is a characteristic of those on the political right.

It's not a POV that I subscribe to; some of the most progressive people I know attend the local UU church pretty regularly, and I don't know of anyone I've met who is politically progressive AND hoplophobic, except online, but then gun talk doesn't come up in conversation often in my real life.

I think Obama may have been speaking to a select crowd using a stereotype that they would buy into, even if he didn't.

This was not his best moment, IMO.



PS, I think things are going swimmingly well with new group, three new members just today!

The invisibility feature is really useful.

[cbayer]

44. What new group?

[NYC_SKP]

45. Oh you kidder you!

I forgot we weren't supposed to mention it.



That new group idea we were toying with, it was a little exchange we had about a month ago.

Frankly, I've forgotten what the purpose was going to be, exactly....

Probably had to do with discussing religions of all sorts in a civil manner, but then we decided that the interfaith group is a good place for that.

[cbayer]

47. Ah, that group!

Shhhhhhhhh!!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Nah.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/12/nate-silver-gun-ownership-demographics/60131/

[Cartoonist]

36. The religion that clings to guns

Is obviously the Republican Party. There isn't a single category in that list in which the republicans have a lower percentage.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Rural white religious republican men.

The "nones" and "nevers" are at the bottom of both religion categories.

[NYC_SKP]

39. A 2008 exit poll? That's the data? What was the "n" for this study?

I couldn't find any links to original sources of this fancy chart.

In any event, the lowest two sets of figures, "Religion" and "Religious Attendance" do not show significantly different levels of ownership based upon stated affiliation, except that perhaps one can suggest lower ownership rates for Catholic Dems than for Protestant Dems.

Hardly a refutation of the premise of the OP.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. You want more data?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx

It is all pretty much the same.

[NYC_SKP]

46. Not really. The three religious groups there are pretty much all in the middle range.

"No religious affiliation" and "attend weekly monthly" are tied at 29%, and right in the middle of the pack.

And Catholics own fewer guns than atheists, by your Gallup poll.

What was the point you wanted to make again?

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. There is no 'atheists' group listed there

There is a 'no religious preference' group given, but you know better than to call them all 'atheists'. You ought to, anyway. Here are the relevant figures:

Protestants/Other Christians 36%
No religious preference 29%
Catholics 25%

Attend church weekly 32%
Attend church nearly weekly/monthly 29%
Seldom/never attend church 29%

The first group shows, since non-Catholic Christians outnumber Catholics, that the figure for Christians as a whole would be above 30.5%. So, larger than 'no religious preference'. The 2nd shows the more you attend church, the more likely you are to own a gun.

So, yes, these figures do oppose the premise of the OP, though that is strangely worded about "attachment levels" rather than gun ownership. However, your objection that "I couldn't find any links to original sources of this fancy chart" applies equally to the OP - plus the OP doesn't even give numbers. Odd you didn't whine about that, isn't it? The point is made, but you don't want to see it.