• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fear and gun ownership.

S

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
18,819
Reaction score
5,167
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The argument is that much of the pro gun arguments are based on fear. And that can be easily dismissed as an appeal to emotions rather than a good reason for having a gun.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0373-z
A few studies have reported that handgun ownership is associated with past victimization, perceived risk of crime, and perceived ineffectiveness of police protection within low-income communities where these concerns may be congruent with real risks (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000, 2004). However, gun ownership tends to be lower in urban settings and in low-income families where there might be higher rates of violence and crime (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000). Instead, the largest demographic of gun owners in the US are white men living in rural communities who are earning more than $100K/year (Azrael et al., 2017). Mencken and Froese (2019) likewise reported that gun owners tend to have higher incomes and greater ratings of life happiness than non-owners. These findings suggest a mismatch between subjective fear and objective reality.
Click to expand...

Stroebe and colleagues (2017) reported that the specific perceived risk of victimization and more “diffuse” fears that the world is a dangerous place are both independent predictors of handgun ownership, with perceived risk of assault associated with having been or knowing a victim of violent crime and belief in a dangerous world associated with political conservatism. These findings hint at the likelihood that perceived risk of victimization can be based on vicarious sources with a potential for bias, whether through actual known acquaintances or watching the nightly news, conducting a Google search or scanning one’s social media feed, or reading “The Armed Citizen” column in the NRA newsletter The American Rifleman. It also suggests that a general fear of crime, independent of actual or even perceived individual risk, may be a powerful motivator for gun ownership for some that might track with race and political ideology.
Click to expand...
 
soylentgreen said:
The argument is that much of the pro gun arguments are based on fear. And that can be easily dismissed as an appeal to emotions rather than a good reason for having a gun.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0373-z
Click to expand...

Likewise, if someone fears falling from a great height, their reluctance to leap from a cliff is based on nothing but emotion, and can be dismissed as not a good reason to refrain from jumping off cliffs.
 
The idea that owning (possessing within the household) X increases the inherent risks associated with owning X does not require a study. Neither do the assertions that it is better to have an X and not need it than to need an X and not have it or when seconds really count, the police are mere minutes away.

I have owned guns legally for about 40 years and none of them have never fired a shot at a person (including myself) while I owned them. IMHO, that is the shared experience of the vast majority of legal US gun owners.

Could I, or a member of my household, abuse my guns? Of course, but that is true of many household items potentially useful as weapons, poisons or accelerants. Could previously owned guns which I sold privately (some decades ago) end up in the hands of ‘prohibited persons’? Yep, yet that is well beyond my control, as are the guns sold by FFL dealers after the (initial) buyer passed an NICS BGC.

The bottom line is that most proposed “gun control” laws (even outright bans) would mainly alter the behavior of legal gun owners (possessors) since criminals, by definition, seek to ignore or violate “gun control” laws. Noting that “gun crime” drops in nations with more (or most) restrictive “gun control” laws, ignores the huge increase in government power which must exist to effectively enforce such restrictive laws on otherwise law abiding folks.
 
soylentgreen said:
The argument is that much of the pro gun arguments are based on fear. And that can be easily dismissed as an appeal to emotions rather than a good reason for having a gun.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0373-z
Click to expand...

I purchased a gun within the last two or so years.

I believed, rightly or wrongly, that if an intruder entered my home when I was younger, I'd have a fair to superior chance of defending my self and my wife in a fair fight.

Being older now, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that if an intruder entered my home I would be easy pickings for the intruder and would NOT be able to defend myself and my wife in a fair fight.

I feel. rightly or wrongly, that me having a gun will increase my chances of success in a fight with an intruder.

I have spoken to numerous police officers who all agree that if i call the police to ask for help on a home invasion, the cops will arrive AFTER the danger is over in almost every possible outcome.

The police are sent to fill out reports, not to stop the violence.

All things considered, I'd prefer the be the person in their report who talked about the body on the floor and not be the body on the floor.
 
RF667799 said:
Likewise, if someone fears falling from a great height, their reluctance to leap from a cliff is based on nothing but emotion, and can be dismissed as not a good reason to refrain from jumping off cliffs.
Click to expand...
Not really. Humans learn the fear of falling when a baby and reinforce it through out childhood. Fear is a survival trait.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect
Human beings can identify potentially dangerous, threatening stimuli such as spiders and snakes very quickly. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because some spiders and snakes are poisonous, and our ancient ancestors who could identify them quickly were more likely to avoid them and live to pass on their genes. Recent research shows that people can identify guns as quickly as they can identify spiders and snakes.[4],[5],[6] These findings are very interesting because guns are modern threats so this cannot be explained as easily using evolutionary principles. Yet guns are far more dangerous to people today than spiders or snakes. Poisonous spiders (e.g., Black Widows, Brown Recluses) kill about six Americans each year.[7] Poisonous snakes (e.g., rattlesnakes) kill about five Americans each year.[8] In comparison, guns kill about 31,000 Americans each year.[9]
Click to expand...
The pro gun argument is one of perpetuating that fear. Not as you suggest a survival skill.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Likely not, but perhaps to solicit “good reasons” to limit gun (or type of gun) ownership or the places where gun possession remains legal.
Click to expand...
You don't really "need" a gun if it isn't a life or death matter. ;)

I can't begin to count how often I've seen that particular equivocation bandied about.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea that owning (possessing within the household) X increases the inherent risks associated with owning X does not require a study. Neither do the assertions that it is better to have an X and not need it than to need an X and not have it or when seconds really count, the police are mere minutes away.

I have owned guns legally for about 40 years and none of them have never fired a shot at a person (including myself) while I owned them. IMHO, that is the shared experience of the vast majority of legal US gun owners.

Could I, or a member of my household, abuse my guns? Of course, but that is true of many household items potentially useful as weapons, poisons or accelerants. Could previously owned guns which I sold privately (some decades ago) end up in the hands of ‘prohibited persons’? Yep, yet that is well beyond my control, as are the guns sold by FFL dealers after the (initial) buyer passed an NICS BGC.

The bottom line is that most proposed “gun control” laws (even outright bans) would mainly alter the behavior of legal gun owners (possessors) since criminals, by definition, seek to ignore or violate “gun control” laws. Noting that “gun crime” drops in nations with more (or most) restrictive “gun control” laws, ignores the huge increase in government power which must exist to effectively enforce such restrictive laws on otherwise law abiding folks.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong here but if you are one of the pro gun group who go by the creed of "from my cold dead hands," then you forfeit the right to call your self a law abiding citizen. As law abiding does not mean you get to choose which laws you will obey. That's what criminals do.
 
Artymoon said:
Are you asking posters here for their opinion for what's "a good reason" to have a gun?
Click to expand...
No, I am pointing out that the arguments used by the pro gun people here rely on fear of not having a gun rather than a good reason for having a gun.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Likely not, but perhaps to solicit “good reasons” to limit gun (or type of gun) ownership or the places where gun possession remains legal.
Click to expand...
Probably. I'm always curious the fascination other countries have with our Constitution.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, I am pointing out that the arguments used by the pro gun people here rely on fear of not having a gun rather than a good reason for having a gun.
Click to expand...

Fear of not having sufficient fuel in your tank to make your destination is not good reason to stop at the gas station.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, I am pointing out that the arguments used by the pro gun people here rely on fear of not having a gun rather than a good reason for having a gun.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I don't see it as a fear, I see it as having the best option for a given circumstance. If for some reason I don't have it, I have options 2,3,4 and so on.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not really. Humans learn the fear of falling when a baby and reinforce it through out childhood. Fear is a survival trait.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect

The pro gun argument is one of perpetuating that fear. Not as you suggest a survival skill.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t that “perpetuating fear” argument apply to fire extinguisher ownership as well? Fire extinguishers are handy in a very limited number of cases, yet the fear of fire is a completely valid reason to own them.

Before you chime in with the few criminal (or self harm) abuse possibilities of fire extinguishers, that simply switches the argument to one’s fear of gun crime (or ease of suicide) being used to justify “gun control” measures. The ‘having lots of guns in society is scary’ argument appears to be the most common reason put forth to support having more “gun control” laws.
 
code1211 said:
I purchased a gun within the last two or so years.

I believed, rightly or wrongly, that if an intruder entered my home when I was younger, I'd have a fair to superior chance of defending my self and my wife in a fair fight.

Being older now, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that if an intruder entered my home I would be easy pickings for the intruder and would NOT be able to defend myself and my wife in a fair fight.

I feel. rightly or wrongly, that me having a gun will increase my chances of success in a fight with an intruder.

I have spoken to numerous police officers who all agree that if i call the police to ask for help on a home invasion, the cops will arrive AFTER the danger is over in almost every possible outcome.

The police are sent to fill out reports, not to stop the violence.

All things considered, I'd prefer the be the person in their report who talked about the body on the floor and not be the body on the floor.
Click to expand...

So basically you are agreeing that fear was the factor for buying a gun.

If you actually have good reasons to fear then you have a problem with your society. If it is just fear then it still is a problem rather than a good reason.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea that owning (possessing within the household) X increases the inherent risks associated with owning X does not require a study. Neither do the assertions that it is better to have an X and not need it than to need an X and not have it or when seconds really count, the police are mere minutes away.

I have owned guns legally for about 40 years and none of them have never fired a shot at a person (including myself) while I owned them. IMHO, that is the shared experience of the vast majority of legal US gun owners.

Could I, or a member of my household, abuse my guns? Of course, but that is true of many household items potentially useful as weapons, poisons or accelerants. Could previously owned guns which I sold privately (some decades ago) end up in the hands of ‘prohibited persons’? Yep, yet that is well beyond my control, as are the guns sold by FFL dealers after the (initial) buyer passed an NICS BGC.

The bottom line is that most proposed “gun control” laws (even outright bans) would mainly alter the behavior of legal gun owners (possessors) since criminals, by definition, seek to ignore or violate “gun control” laws. Noting that “gun crime” drops in nations with more (or most) restrictive “gun control” laws, ignores the huge increase in government power which must exist to effectively enforce such restrictive laws on otherwise law abiding folks.
Click to expand...


Well, there is gun suicide by law abiding folks, killing more, by far, than gun homicide. There's that.
 
soylentgreen said:
The argument is that much of the pro gun arguments are based on fear. And that can be easily dismissed as an appeal to emotions rather than a good reason for having a gun.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0373-z
Click to expand...
Yes .. emotions like .. guns will suddenly "do something" that is evil, and we won't hold the person accountable ... just the gun; Meanwhile, guns account for 300 - 500K+ interactions every year in a positive sense to deter theft, rape and other bad guys from doing their thing.
 
RF667799 said:
You're probably going to have to decide if fear is a survival trait, or a fallacious appeal to emotion. You appear to want it both ways.
Click to expand...
As usual you lack comprehension. The example you gave of falling is an example of a survival skill but a fear of not having a gun is a learned behaviour.
 
soylentgreen said:
So basically you are agreeing that fear was the factor for buying a gun.

If you actually have good reasons to fear then you have a problem with your society. If it is just fear then it still is a problem rather than a good reason.
Click to expand...

Is that "problem with society", a fear itself?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea that owning (possessing within the household) X increases the inherent risks associated with owning X does not require a study. Neither do the assertions that it is better to have an X and not need it than to need an X and not have it or when seconds really count, the police are mere minutes away.

I have owned guns legally for about 40 years and none of them have never fired a shot at a person (including myself) while I owned them. IMHO, that is the shared experience of the vast majority of legal US gun owners.

Could I, or a member of my household, abuse my guns? Of course, but that is true of many household items potentially useful as weapons, poisons or accelerants. Could previously owned guns which I sold privately (some decades ago) end up in the hands of ‘prohibited persons’? Yep, yet that is well beyond my control, as are the guns sold by FFL dealers after the (initial) buyer passed an NICS BGC.

The bottom line is that most proposed “gun control” laws (even outright bans) would mainly alter the behavior of legal gun owners (possessors) since criminals, by definition, seek to ignore or violate “gun control” laws. Noting that “gun crime” drops in nations with more (or most) restrictive “gun control” laws, ignores the huge increase in government power which must exist to effectively enforce such restrictive laws on otherwise law abiding folks.
Click to expand...
Once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? Seems like an easy way for LOE to determine who is breaking the law.
 
soylentgreen said:
As usual you lack comprehension. The example you gave of falling is an example of a survival skill but a fear of not having a gun is a learned behaviour.
Click to expand...

Learned from observing instances where people saved their lives by having a gun?

That's much like learning to not jump from a cliff, by observing that bad things happen to those that do.
 
Artymoon said:
Gotcha. I don't see it as a fear, I see it as having the best option for a given circumstance. If for some reason I don't have it, I have options 2,3,4 and so on.
Click to expand...
My question would be why is the gun at the number one option? Either crime is so bad that it needs to be there or it is not very likely and should be further down the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom