Question for Psychologists / Psychiatrists

J

Jeff Thomas

New member
I note that Glenn Meyer is a psychologist, and I imagine we have a few other 'head cases' [ ;) ] here. A question for those 'psych'-minded TFLer's.

As I've learned about the RKBA debate, read reports of confrontations, and seen a few myself, I've begun to wonder if there are some interesting psychological differences between pro and anti-RKBA folks.

Now this will be biased as he**, but here goes ... it seems to me that many anti-RKBA folks lack confidence in their own stability. Many of them honestly seem to worry that if they had a gun, they might use it to commit violence. They also seem generally less self reliant and more communal in their thinking.

OTOH, pro-RKBA folks seem more self reliant and stable, and more independent in their lives.

Now, these are very, very broad generalizations, based only upon my impressions, not empirical evidence or studies. And, I've certainly met unstable people on both sides of the fence [he** ... my wife wonders about me sometimes ;) ]. But, it makes me wonder if anyone has ever studied this.

I realize many people are simply ignorant about the issue, and might be anti-RKBA simply based upon misinformation from the mainstream media. But, I'm talking about people who are 'true believers', one way or the other.

Comments? Has such a study been done, or is this fertile ground for such an examination?

Regards from AZ



[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
Good points, but I think generalizing that a _whole_ group of people share a particular trait is dangerous. You'd be more likely to find that more antis lack self-confidence in their ability to control their actions than a comparable population of gunners, but that not all antis share this trait.

Conversely, you might find that more gunners are independent thinkers and livers (not livers, livers) than a comparable population of antis, but that not all share this trait.

The issue would be the criteria used for defining and naming these traits. Is a particular set of traits properly labeled "independence" or "stubborness?"

Good post. Hope to read the responses of others.

Ledbetter

BTW, the name of the psychologist I went to for my CCW evaluation? Dr. Nutter, I swear to God.

Yes, I passed. I didn't joke with him about it, for obvious reasons.



[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
Very nice projections on the part of the choir.

However, this has been looked at intensively and there are not significant psychological differences between gun owners and nongunowners.

No more problems or lack of problems between the groups.

Gun owners tend to be a little more affluent and well educated. However, since some of our members argue against education, what does that mean? :)

Remember that about 40-50% of the households in America have firearms. If gun owners were such stalwart paragons of virtue and liberty that one projects, the country would be a different place.

Also there is no evidence that antigunners
worry about that they would use a gun badly.
None, zero, zip.

Sigh - it's a good question but the answer is mundane and not what the choir would want to hear.
 
"Also there is no evidence that antigunners worry about that they would use a gun badly. None, zero, zip."

So this means what, that the premise is faulty?

In my personal experience (evidence), I totally agree with Jeff. Not all folks mind you, but the vast majority of Anti's tend to be "dependent" on the greater "system" and, they also tend to exhibit fears about "what bad things I would do if I had gun!"

I have seen this behavioral pattern many many times. Co-workers, wife's friends, neighbors, comments heard on the street, comments at my own civic association meetings...

OTOH, the pro-gunners tend to exhibit more independent thinking tendencies. They tend to want to handle problems themselves rather than immediately looking around for the nearest elected official or officer.

The absence of a study acknowledged, IMHO, this is a real and sound pattern.

CMOS



------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
"no evidence" means no evidence yet - not enough studies have been done to reach a conclusion. Otherwise, the assertion from Mr. Meyer would be "the evidence suggets the converse actually". Therefore, my conclusion is, the results are inconclusive and the hypothesis requires further investigation. We all know the generalizations are seemingly true; the proper study just needs to be funded, devised, and undertaken. Correct, Mr. Meyer?
 
Now wouldn't this be the most politically incorrect study to ever be published?

I'd pay money to help this one along.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
Non academic personal observation over eight decades of living on this fair Earth.

The liberal/socialist/communist masses in this fair country seem to have an aversion to personal responsibility. Thus they earn their moniker; sheeple. They want somebody else to tell them how to live and tend to vote for people who promise to protect them from hunger, illness, unemployment etc. They are willing to sacrifice individual freedom in order to get security, and most do not realize that they are opting for neither. And they are making themselves sitting ducks for those who would profit from their complacency.

Generalizations yes and there are a few exceptions.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
I think Psychology is always going to come up short in terms of explaining human behavior anyway. Just too many complexities. We can make generalizations but really there are no absolutes. Culture probably plays a far greater role than psychology in determining beliefs and behavior of individuals.

When we talk about the differences of "us" and "them" I think we have to talk about cultural differences. This may sound racist (screw it if it does, I refuse to be PC), but White Europeans, particularly those of Scottish ancestry and cultural persuasion (most of the people who came to this country early on were Scottish who couldn't stand to be subjects any longer, including my ancestors), seem to be individualistic a-holes. Other cultural groups like African Americans tend to be more communal. Way over generalized, I know, but that's my observation. Women as a group also tend to lean toward a communal outlook on life. The Jewish people are a complete mystery to me, though. I'm still in amazement that you can find an unarmed Jew on this planet. I digress.

Some Euros, like the Russians, have a strange dichotomy of fiercely independent resistance (Naepoleon and Hitler both underestimated the willingness of Russians, particularly Cossacks, to die rather than submit) and an almost servile dedication to the state (Stalin remained popular throughout his reign, despite killing literally millions). I don't quite grasp the incongruity myself but the 2 inclinations seem to co-exist somehow. You can still find a real hard-core strain of individualism and independence of thought in many Russians even today after having suffered through 70 years of Communism.

Side note: these tendencies are often more cultural than racial. Witness the Zulu uprisings against the Brits.

Anyway, as this country goes from a "melting pot" (never really was, but at least immigrants of 60+ years ago tried to become as "American" as possible. My stepfather, who's native country was Germany, used to get a rap on the knuckles, and I mean hard, if he slipped and used his German) to a fragmented, Balkanized, state without a shared belief system, we're going to see a lot more conflict between the way we percieve the nature of Americanism. Especially as the Pinkos continue to exploit class warfare.

I don't think the differences are in the mind as much as they are in the belief system you grew up in. Of course, you can change that and the cultural differences between say, Irish and Italians is way way less distinct than even a generation ago, but there's still a difference.

The biggest difference these days is the difference between Easterners and Westerners and the difference between urbanites and ruralites. It's funny, but I don't think people in New Jersey have any concept of why halting logging to "save" the spotted owl was ever a problem. They aren't aware that wood doesn't just show up on a truck, just as they don't give it a milisecond of thought where the meat in thier local grocery store comes from. It just appears, neatly wrapped and sanitary. They're far removed from the actual reality of the situation as they can be.

Same with gun issues. If you're living in New York City, and that's been your life experience, its just natural to think "what do people need guns for?" Coming from that background, its not a surprising attitude.
 
Yeah, right - lots of studies on gun owners and gun ownership.

You guys can think you are special but that's not in the literature. Nor do studies on asking folks on why they don't own guns indicate that they are fearful they will commit violence with it as a major reason.

If by that original statement, it is meant that they feel the presence of the gun will be some lure or drive to violence - that's not out there. I certainly understand the idea of the null hypothesis and sample size but there isn't even the hint of a nonsignificant result of importance.

Also, you ignore my point that if gunowners are so wonderful - and there are so many - where is this driving force being seen in the electorate and the polls.

The inability of some RKBA folks to actually understand the motivational systems of antigunners is one of the RKBA's greatest weaknesses.
 
One possible explanation for why anti-gunners profess a fear that if everyone has a gun, everyone will do violence:

They are lying to get their way; they have no such fear.

(Sorry, it had to be said.)
 
I'm not current on the psycho lingo, guys, but I am a vocational student of the human comedy and would suggest looking at a more pedestrian explanation for the anti-gun inclination.

Since logical arguments don't seem to have much influence, I look to the emotional climate. It's the emotional climate, I believe, that has fueled the political orthodoxy that we now call "correctness." Smacks of the schoolmarm and her values, don't you know. And therein lies the rub: it is the schoolmarm value system at work here.

Feminism.

The soccer moms have us on the run, holding our crotches and scrambling for dear life. Their husbands and male entourages gladly defer to these amazons with burgeoning balls, who probably give them a little now and then to keep them in line. Academia is in full retreat. Female lawyers are busting geezer judges' balls by the basketful.

But since most social trends are cyclical, we may be coming around on this one. There's a new literature timidly stepping onto the stage. I heard the author of one book defending herself admirably this weekend from an avowed ball-busting feminist on NPR. I've ordered the book from, ironically, Amazon.com. It's the first in the list below. I've included several others along the same line:

The War Against Boys : How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers

Who Stole Feminism? : How Women Have Betrayed Women by Christina Hoff Sommers

How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy : And Found Inner Peace by Harry Stein

Heterophobia : Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (American Intellectual Culture) by Daphne Patai

Real Boys' Voices by William S. Pollack Ph.D., William S. Pollack

The Long March : How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America by Roger Kimball

Hey, it's a start.

------------------
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. -- Ambrose Bierce

[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited June 20, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
I believe the original question related to "pro-RKBA" vs "anti-RKBA" people. That is, people who have at least fairly strong opinions on the topic.

In Glenn Meyer's unpopular response here, he used the term "gun owners" versus "non-gun owners," or near equivalents.

Are we comparing apples and oranges here? I was pro-RKBA long before I became a gun owner. And I've run into some gun owners who say they would be happier if everyone else was disarmed, so they could disarm as well. And quite a few more who would favor "reasonable" regulations on gun ownership, actually believing they can keep guns out of the hands of bad people.

So my question to Dr.(?) Meyer is, have there been any studies focusing on pro vs anti RKBA partisans, as opposed to gun owners or non-owners generally? Have possible distinctions between pistol and rifle owners versus shotgun owners been looked at? And does the statement, "no evidence that anti-gunners would use a gun badly" mean that this particular question has been studied and found to be negative, or that there has been little or no investigation of which you are aware?

--The Beez


[This message has been edited by The Beez (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
I'm suggesting that anti-gun opinions are uninformed, or poorly formed opinions, deriving from emotions rather than reason -- else why the almost unanimous anger toward John Lott's research by anti-gunners? The arguments, such as they are, tend to be rationalizations, not the product of independent thinking.

We live in a culture that pretends to prefer niceness over boldness and nonconfrontational safety over risk, despite the fact that our graduating high school seniors are always told to be bold and to take risks. Guns are acceptable only in fantasy movies and video games. In real life, they're too real. They are vivid symbols of the hypocrisy that "nice" people don't wish to acknowledge.

Sorry, guys, I've never been one for debating how many of these or those can dance on the head of a pin. Our struggle has become too immediate and vital to waste time on such a luxury.

No offense intended to any professional psychologists on the board. I note that Dr. Meyer has pretty much answered the original question, albeit not distinguishing between owning and non-owning antis, or between handgunners and longgunners. But would such distinctions be, in the argot, "statistically significant?" Way too many variables, I should think.

I'm much less interested in what makes antis tick than in how to persuade the undetermineds to see how vital the RKBA is to the survival of our democratic republic. They're the ones we need to win away from the antis. The antis use words like "sensible" and "for the children." Powerfully emotional words. "Sensible" a power word? You bet. It conjures the calming illusion of sanity and safety in a world that is frantic and crazy from blurring moral reference points. That's why they're beating us. The mere idea of guns bumps uncomfortably against the calming illusion.

How do we take back the initiative? With women, children and mild-mannered men, talking calmly and sensibly, with one distinction from those who shrink from threats instead of meeting them: they are quietly confident and firm in their insistence on their right to defend themselves and refuse victimhood.

It's a public relations war. We're losing, but we can still win.

[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited June 20, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
What you guys are forgetting about and leaving out is....activist. That levels the playing field. We are activists and we deal with opposing activists....regardless of our particular passion. You want to look at the psychology of activists. Don't forget, the apparent broad-based anti-gun fervor is very recent....much too recent to have an valid psychological component ingrained within the population. What we see is PC new-speak and new-thought...basically a concept recently embraced by various factors for political gain.

I know some gunowners that shouldn't be allowed to walk free and I know some non-gunowners that shouldn't be allowed to walk free....and you do too.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
"Why antigunners are obviously suffering from penis envy but are so hopeless in their wish for an adequate sized organ that they wish to deny the symbolic phalus -- the gun -- to everyone else as well."
-- Zigmund Fraud ;)

Really, antigunners seem to me to be motivated by deep emotion and their arguments are more like bumper stickers than reason. They seem to be singing the song of their tribe and if your song is not in harmony with theirs, they turn off.

There are also committed statists who want power concentrated in the hands of the few. The others, the song singers are mostly their dupes. But they are also the ones "in play". How do we appeal to them?
 
Gentlemen. The guilty partys are...#1 Media hype to further their media. #2 Political hype to further their political advantage. #3 naive populist to be the suckers of society...oldest running show in this great country of ours. All this psychological hype is tripe.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top