patrick.net

THe Left gushes and oozes over the thought of ANYONE being empowered other than a white man.

Fuck off you commie American hating losers. That's why we've got the smarts and you got the sharts.

And after all these years I found out that men can also be "EMPOWERED".

And by the way Jail is full of gun empowered Latino and Black thugs that failed as a Liberal education student.

Liberal education seems to empower brown people to get illegal guns and reek havoc on their communities.

One of the benefits of senility: you are never afraid to lay down fire at the slightest provocation.

Find it interesting guns make poor whites feel more in control while not having the same effect for poor minorities.

komputodo says

And after all these years I found out that men can also be "EMPOWERED".

Agree. I used to equate that term to young women who read cosmo articles to steel them about meekly asking for a raise -- "you are a strong confident woman"!!!

It does however equally describe the plight of poor whites who "feel strong" when they have a gun.

Gun owners, on average, were more likely to be white, male, married, older, conservative, and from rural areas. Meaning legal gun owners.

White, male, married, older, conservative...

They say it like it’s a bad thing. That’s a pretty sharp grouping right there. Maybe that group is actually onto something?

White: good
Rural: good
Married: good
Older: good
Conservative: good

So gun owners are usually good people. Ok!

Quigley says

White: good
Rural: good
Married: good
Older: good
Conservative: good

So gun owners are usually good people. Ok!

Yep, as long as they aren't Liberals.

Sniper says

Quigley says

White: good
Rural: good
Married: good
Older: good
Conservative: good

So gun owners are usually good people. Ok!

Yep, as long as they aren't Liberals.

Why is that?

Every one of my Asian coworkers, and almost every Asian family I know owns one or more guns so its not just white guys. Funny how that group relates so closely but is never compared.

Asian is the new white. Not because Asian people are the same, but because they work hard and take responsibility for their actions, their kids actions, and their fortunes. This makes them “white” according to Leftists.
Draw your own conclusions about why this perception arose.

The OP article was trying in an extremely sneaky way, to cast aspersions on the above segment of American population. They did this by asking which group or culture was “responsible” for opposing gun legislation, and why. Then they used a lot of dog whistle race-baiting terms to suggest that white older rural conservatives are somehow bad and/or antisocial, and certainly not sophisticated, educated, or “properly cultured” enough to understand right from wrong. And that this is why, in addition to them being poor (or losers) they “bitterly cling” to the gun which is their talisman of power.

It’s a very snarky approach and will do zero to convince anyone to form a different opinion on either side of the issue.

A certain amount of black/brown people are using guns in gangs. I'd be curious to know about how black people who are not in gangs view and use guns. Those are two distinct groups, and figuring out how to lower gun violence can only happen if you separate gangs from non-gangs. Gangs have to be fixed regardless of gun control measures, and I'm not sure that gun control would have much of an impact on gangs and gang violence.

anon_61c8a says

and I'm not sure that gun control would have much of an impact on gangs and gang violence.

It will have ZERO impact on gangs, it will just remove the ability of lawful citizens to protect themselves.

That's why the National Gun-Carry Reciprocity Bill needs to be passed in Congress.

Sniper says

It will have ZERO impact on gangs, it will just remove the ability of lawful citizens to protect themselves.

You seem to be assuming that gun control means taking away legal gun ownership. If that were done, then police would have the ability to put any criminal with a gun in jail. So, it would lead to new avenues for cops. If sentences were long, it might could cut back on crime. It would be tough to say. A better method would be to require training and licensing for gun owners and stiff penalties for people without licenses. That would unfortunately lead to a (hopefully temporary) even higher incarceration rate, which is already a problem.

anon_61c8a says

A better method would be to require training and licensing for gun owners and stiff penalties for people without licenses.

That already exists in many states.

anon_61c8a says

and stiff penalties for people without licenses. That would unfortunately lead to a (hopefully temporary) even higher incarceration rate, which is already a problem.

How's that working out in Chicago, Oakland, Newark, Camden, Detroit, etc. which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country?

Sniper says

anon_61c8a says

A better method would be to require training and licensing for gun owners and stiff penalties for people without licenses.

That already exists in many states.

anon_61c8a says

and stiff penalties for people without licenses. That would unfortunately lead to a (hopefully temporary) even higher incarceration rate, which is already a problem.

How's that working out in Chicago, Oakland, Newark, Camden, Detroit, etc. which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country?

The article posted by BO is ubsurd in its inclusion only of legal gun owners. Without a breakdown in who is responsible for the 11,000+ homicides in the US(hint hint it aint legal gun owners) the study is absolutely worth nothing.

Hey Baylor assholes....go question some black and brown people too. Since they are overwhelmingly responsible for homicides in the US, make sure you sample the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Gun violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.[15][16] Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings in the US account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths[17] and the frequency of these events steadily declined between 1994 and 2007, rising between 2007 and 2013.[18][19]

Fucking White Male says

The article posted by BO is ubsurd in its inclusion only of legal gun owners.

This is not about violence. This is about how having a gun make people feel.
For sure, it reassures them.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is not about violence. This is about how having a gun make people feel.
For sure, it reassures them.

Being and feeling powerless is a huge source of stress for any animal, but it’s worst for primates like monkeys and humans. People seek power of all sorts because it reduces stress and makes them feel better. A gun is a source of direct power. Unsubtle as it is, it’s enough to make a lot of relatively powerless (but law abiding) people feel like they have some power. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The right to self defense is the most inalienable right there is.

Heraclitusstudent says

Fucking White Male says

The article posted by BO is ubsurd in its inclusion only of legal gun owners.

This is not about violence. This is about how having a gun make people feel.
For sure, it reassures them.

What is the point of that sort of study?

Is it not clear that the people who conducted this study have an agenda? Is it not clear that the author of OP's article has an agenda? If not, why mention the aspects of gun control?

But it’s difficult to define a single culture behind gun ownership and the opposition to gun control legislation that sometimes accompanies that. More importantly, blaming something as vague as “culture” isn’t exactly helpful for identifying ways to reduce the US’ high death toll.

In fact, the "death toll" is well established by facts in the wiki entry I cited as being nearly entirely due to 1.) suicides(which arguably would happen anyway) and 2.) homicides, committed overwhelmingly by people not included in the study.

Fucking White Male says

What is the point of that sort of study?

It is to show that they are using guns to mask other problems. Problems that are really not addressed by the guns.

I'm white. An ex-liberal, now conservative, (multiple) gun owner, who is financially responsible and could retire right now at 35. Very similar to a large number of my friends. I say the article is racist against whites :)

Heraclitusstudent says

Fucking White Male says

What is the point of that sort of study?

It is to show that they are using guns to mask other problems. Problems that are really not addressed by the guns.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Let us conduct a highly biased study to find out why white men are so angry.

Right.

If we are in non-trolling serious comment mode - I think a question that should be asked (in the hopes of getting a sincere answer) is why do the gun carriers feel the need to be so open and outspoken with the gun carry in public? I assume it makes the gun carriers feel safer, but I am curious to know if the gun carriers (a) know and (b) care that this causes the non gun carriers to feel a lot less secure?

IOW - when you are sitting down at Applebees and remove your phone and gun and place them on the table to eat? Do you do so with the express intent to annoy/unsettle the non-gun carriers or you don't care about the fact that it makes the non gun carriers uncomfortable?

Quigley says

The right to self defense is the most inalienable right there is.

But the right to self defense doesn't equal a right to any weapon that exists in the world today.

Nobody is arguing against the right to self defense. People are only arguing about what weapons citizens should be allowed to possess

Fucking White Male says

What is the point of that sort of study?

Is it not clear that the people who conducted this study have an agenda? Is it not clear that the author of OP's article has an agenda? If not, why mention the aspects of gun control?

I'm sure they do have an agenda. But as some people have noted, the whole concept of the "gun culture" is something strangely engrained in this country. I think its an interesting question that the well off white collar urban types (who by definition probably have the most to lose) and the poor white rural types (who don't have much to begin with) feel this overwhelming "need" to have guns with all the various trimmings. In other words, while some wealthy whites may indeed have a sidearm - the "gun culture" types who get the stock modifications, clip modifications, etc are usally poor - why the paradox?

Fucking White Male says

In fact, the "death toll" is well established by facts in the wiki entry I cited as being nearly entirely due to 1.) suicides(which arguably would happen anyway) and 2.) homicides, committed overwhelmingly by people not included in the study.

I somewhat agree with you on #2, but not really on point #1. I think (on average) the poor, disaffected whites are more likely to commit suicide anyway, and if so, if they did not have access to a gun, how many would be willing to slit their wrists, or take pills to make it happen? I don't know the answer, but I think you can agree that if it wasn't so "easy" as it is with a single, instant, pull of a glock to the temple, probably more of those people wouldn't go through with it.

anon_24e57 says

Fucking White Male says

What is the point of that sort of study?

Is it not clear that the people who conducted this study have an agenda? Is it not clear that the author of OP's article has an agenda? If not, why mention the aspects of gun control?

I'm sure they do have an agenda. But as some people have noted, the whole concept of the "gun culture" is something strangely engrained in this country. I think its an interesting question that the well off white collar urban types (who by definition probably have the most to lose) and the poor white rural types (who don't have much to begin with) feel this overwhelming "need" to have guns with all the various trimmings. In other words, while some wealthy whites may indeed have a sidearm - the "gun culture" types who get the stock modifications, clip modifications, etc are usally poor - why the paradox?

The manner in how you are looking at things is already flawed. And that’s really the issue. Do you understand any hobby in which you don’t engage? Do you understand, for example, baseball cards where a perfectly nice Mike Trout card out of the pack is a $1-2 card, but if it’s graded as a 10, it’s a $50 card. I guarantee you would not be able to tell the difference, but in the hobby word it’s all the dnifference. At least to some hardcore collectors.

When you are talking al the bells and whistles, it’s a hobby to those guys.

Quigley says

The OP article was trying in an extremely sneaky way, to cast aspersions on the above segment of American population. They did this by asking which group or culture was “responsible” for opposing gun legislation, and why. Then they used a lot of dog whistle race-baiting terms to suggest that white older rural conservatives are somehow bad and/or antisocial, and certainly not sophisticated, educated, or “properly cultured” enough to understand right from wrong. And that this is why, in addition to them being poor (or losers) they “bitterly cling” to the gun which is their talisman of power.

I must have forgotten the statistics where it showed Older, White, Rural, Married Men with legally purchased guns were dealing drugs, killing people in drive-bys, robbing liquor stores at gunpoint, etc. in the Urban areas where the vast, vast majority of violent crime happens.

The way Jacobins go on about Gun Owners, you'd think all the "Urban" problems are their fault.

Which society is the most violent?

The one that revolves around twerking and songs celebrating the short, fast paced life of drug dealers with their Bitches and Money and Flashy Cars?

Or the one that revolves around line dancing and songs about your dog passing away?

Quigley says

A gun is a source of direct power. Unsubtle as it is, it’s enough to make a lot of relatively powerless (but law abiding) people feel like they have some power. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The right to self defense is the most inalienable right there is.

A gun also equalizes the playing field with an armed 65 year old 98 lb. woman and a 250 lb. 35 year old attacker.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Which society is the most violent?

The one that revolves around twerking and songs celebrating the short, fast paced life of drug dealers with their Bitches and Money and Flashy Cars?

Or the one that revolves around line dancing and songs about your dog passing away?

Exactly.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I must have forgotten the statistics where it showed Older, White, Rural, Married Men with legally purchased guns were dealing drugs, killing people in drive-bys, robbing liquor stores at gunpoint, etc. in the Urban areas where the vast, vast majority of violent crime happens.

I remember that study and the statistics. The number was 0.0000004%

anon_8f378 says

But the right to self defense doesn't equal a right to any weapon that exists in the world today.

Nobody is arguing against the right to self defense. People are only arguing about what weapons citizens should be allowed to possess

When was the last time gun owners were lobbying congress to let them buy and possess ballistic missiles and suitcase nukes?

I must have missed that newscast.

anon_24e57 says

IOW - when you are sitting down at Applebees and remove your phone and gun and place them on the table to eat? Do you do so with the express intent to annoy/unsettle the non-gun carriers or you don't care about the fact that it makes the non gun carriers uncomfortable?

Dude, you're outing yourself as someone who has no fucking idea about gun culture and carry laws in USA. How's the weather in Olgino?

Sniper and FWM are correct that some gun owners treat it as a sport, or a hobby. Collecting and shooting different types of guns gives them pleasure and a sense of accomplishment. Perhaps it makes them feel like a badass, and that’s something that most people want to feel like once in a while.

I don’t know about that for myself because I don’t have that attraction. I own six guns and they range from a 12 gauge semiauto shotgun to a 22-250 with a serious sniper scope to a .44 Colt dragoon. Something for each purpose, but that’s where my collection ends. I own guns to be prepared to defend my family or for the occasional hunting trip. That’s it.

My brother owns around 40-50 guns, a pretty wide range of lethal armament including full auto assault rifles. Am i worried he’s going to do a shooting spree? Not even. He’s a stable family man who makes more money than most people make in two years, and has many good friends. He collects as a hobby, and who am I to say that’s not ok? My only criticism would be that I wish he’d save more of his money and invest it rather than blow it. Although I suppose guns could be considered a sort of investment. Not a high return tho.

Fucking White Male says

The manner in how you are looking at things is already flawed. And that’s really the issue. Do you understand any hobby in which you don’t engage? Do you understand, for example, baseball cards where a perfectly nice Mike Trout card out of the pack is a $1-2 card, but if it’s graded as a 10, it’s a $50 card. I guarantee you would not be able to tell the difference, but in the hobby word it’s all the dnifference. At least to some hardcore collectors.

Respectfully, did you read the study? It doesnt care at all about the mechanics of the hobby, and instead asks what sort of people are drawn to this hobby? For example, I would guess a study has been done which determined that baseball card collectors were on the average (a) male, (b) white (c) sports fans in general (d) better than average athletes, etc. It is thus immaterial to the study whether the amount of foxing on early Donruss cards can impact the grade of a card. Here the researches ask questions, and when they hear answers about what Rod Carew did in 72 or a 1100OPS they develop a profile.

Here, they are pointing out that one the average the people who are into serious gun dress are more than likely poor, older, rural, etc. Thus when they ask the questions, they hear answers involving "the government" or "riots" or "the second amendment" and develop a profile. In either event, it is an interesting question, - why does gun dress empower this segment of society's powerless, but not other sections of societies powerless (i.e. why don't latino housemaids or young bruthas like this sort of stuff)? Likewise, why don't rich men feel the need for this stuff verus say classic cars, or any other hobby group? It seems like it was taylor made for rich folk who have a lot to lose - yet rich urban types have no interest - why?

Why does it matter?

Fucking White Male says

Why does it matter?

I guess because I am interested in what makes people the way they are. For example, ever heard of bronies? Apparently there are a group of grown ass dudes who like to go and trade and talk about my little ponies. The researcher in me would like to know - what percentage of these people are gay? Or if they aren't gay perhaps they are overwhelmingly trannies, and have yet to come to terms with that? Or maybe it truly is regular, straight dudes who do this "ironically" - or perhaps they are virtue signaling like Dan who used to tell us how sophisticated he was because he could go to Georgie's as a hetero.

Its the same mechanics here - we know there is a sub group of gun owners who are far more into the "gun culture" than others, and now we know a bit about what makes that group tick.

Fuck, that's what passes for "science" on the left now? Arstechnica is terrible.

Arstechnica: Blames white people for gun violence.
Arstechnica: Ignores that HALF of all violent crime in the United States is committed by BLACKS.