« A trip to El Bulli | Main | Non-profit prediction markets »
Why are gun owners so happy?
Arthur Brooks reports:
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
By the way, if you are curious, I have never even touched a gun.
Addendum: Arthur has a new (and very good) book out, Gross National Happiness.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 19, 2008 at 06:48 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
Happiness is a warm gun.
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Apr 19, 2008 7:08:20 AM
From the article:
"Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner."
Or maybe... Guns are a hobby, people who are willing to spend money on their hobbies tend to be happier.
But general aggregation of happiness statistics, which are inherently relative, does not make sense when the distribution of gun owners is so skewed geographically. It's fully possible that the areas where gun ownership is a social norm, also has differing social norms regarding reporting happiness.
In general, whenever social research flies in the face of conventional wisdom, the research is usually wrong.
In this case, I'm sure that if we analyze happiness between Gun Owners and non-gun owners in the same neighborhoods, a clear pattern will emerge:
In rural areas, Gun ownership is a vehicle toward pursuing a hobby, and Gun Owners will be happier than the local norm.
But in Urban areas, where hunting is infeasible(and usually done with rented weapons) and shooting ranges are commonplace, gun ownership is mainly an indicator of paranoia and mistrust toward society(however well justified). People who are fearful of society tend to be less happy then the social norm.
Most people live in Urban areas, so the latter stereotype(Violent and distrustful gun-nuts) prevails in society.
Posted by: David Shor at Apr 19, 2008 7:51:59 AM
Could they just be measuring the difference in happiness between people who live in large metro areas and people who live in small towns and rural areas where life is less stressful and it cost less to live well.
Posted by: joan at Apr 19, 2008 7:56:11 AM
My bet: Conservatism makes one happy and buy guns. And maybe something of the factor above (rural areas).
Posted by: Conny at Apr 19, 2008 8:28:13 AM
Bumper sticker that I first noticed on the pickup truck of a small businessman:
ANNOY A LIBERAL: Work hard. Be happy.
Maybe the problem isn't that gun owners are happier than they should be but that others are more likely to be grumps.
Posted by: tdp at Apr 19, 2008 8:33:30 AM
If a gun owner who has an AK-47 at home meets a gun control advocate, who is most likely to be laughing?
Posted by: 8 at Apr 19, 2008 9:11:38 AM
8,
the person that's read your comment.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Apr 19, 2008 9:26:23 AM
By the way, if you are curious, I have never even touched a gun.
Are you bitter?
BTW I'm a bit skittish around guns myself. I think it dates back to when I was in high school and we were at this kid's house, and he started pointing his dad's gun at us like in a low-budget after-school special.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Apr 19, 2008 9:46:43 AM
Research suggests that reported happiness in surveys is mainly a result of personality, which is stable and substantially genetic.
So it is not a matter of guns or conservatism making you happy - rather the causal arrow goes from a certain innate temperament which includes being happier, to a resulting tendency to be conservative and own guns.
Posted by: BGC at Apr 19, 2008 9:59:23 AM
"In general, whenever social research flies in the face of conventional wisdom, the research is usually wrong."
This statement strikes me as false.
Posted by: keith at Apr 19, 2008 10:32:08 AM
I think when Obama said "cling to guns and religion" he meant that they vote based on cultural issues rather than in their own economic interests, so the variable of interest is not gun ownership but political attitudes.
I'd be surprised if this relationship held when controlling for some geographic variables. Also, it is less likely that conservatism makes you happier than it is that people are happier when their preferred party is in power. See:
Rafael Di Tella, Robert MacCulloch (2005) Partisan Social Happiness
Review of Economic Studies 72 (2)
Posted by: Keith at Apr 19, 2008 10:44:11 AM
I think when Obama said "cling to guns and religion" he meant that they vote based on cultural issues rather than in their own economic interests, so the variable of interest is not gun ownership but political attitudes.
Yes, but he's wrong on this issue. See Prof. Larry Bartels discussing his research in the New York Times. It seems that the wealthier (and more urban) people get, the more likely that they are to vote on cultural issues. The difference in the Republican (or Bush) vote among poor atheists, rare churchgoers, or frequent churchgoers is tiny; it's dramatic among the wealthy (and the effect increases among the urban). The same goes for attitudes about guns, abortion, etc. I don't think that's surprising, really; the idea that economic security frees one from voting on that issue is something I would expect.
Also, it is less likely that conservatism makes you happier than it is that people are happier when their preferred party is in power.
It's certainly true that people are happier when their preferred party is in power, but if you read the books of Arthur Brooks and others, you'll see that even after controlling for that factor, conservatives and libertarians are happier. Again, an unsurprising result for me regardless of your personal politics; broadly speaking, it does not seem too strange that people who are more likely to want the government to do something and demand change would be more likely to be unhappy than people who are satisfied or whose first instinct is that problems will solve themselves either through the market or through voluntary action. That doesn't mean that unhappiness or dissatisfaction with the current situation has no value.
Posted by: John Thacker at Apr 19, 2008 11:17:51 AM
I think people are missing one possible cause for this result: Selection bias. Unhappy, miserable gun owners are less likely to be around any more to respond to surveys asking how happy they are.
(I'm a gun owner, BTW).
Posted by: Bruce at Apr 19, 2008 11:37:22 AM
I read something a few years ago suggesting that people are likely to have a surge of testosterone when holding a gun. Related, mayhaps?
Also, hello to CN
Posted by: Robert Olson at Apr 19, 2008 11:46:27 AM
I'm a former gun owner. I found that once a year I'd go to the range, shoot a few rounds, clean and oil the rifle, and then lock it up for another year. This seemed pointless so I sold it and let my licence expire. But now Britain is awash with unlicensed guns in the hands of criminals, while it is made ever more irksome to own a gun legally. So I reckon my decision was pretty foolish. But perhaps not; if ever it seems wiseto get a gun for self-defence, it would probably be wiser to get an illegal one.
Posted by: dearieme at Apr 19, 2008 11:54:46 AM
I don't think that Obama was making a claim about gun owners in general (just as he wasn't making a claim about religious people in general). Rather, he was talking about people in small towns who base their politics on issues like guns, and vote based on issues like guns. Since these are only a fraction of gun owners, Brooks's data on gun owners doesn't really speak to Obama's claim.
Posted by: anon at Apr 19, 2008 11:59:11 AM
One thing that's turned me off gun owners, at least on the internet, is the overall feeling of emasculation, whinyness, deep bitterness, and propensity to fantasize about end of the world zombie scenarios. And on top of that, the usual noise associated with internet dialog. One popular forum even banned zombie talk, it was getting so thick.
Perhaps none of this negates the happiness factor. Or perhaps in the internet they're a particularly grumpy group. I don't know. I do know that I am a gun owner, I generally find myself happy with my life, and I can find little worthwhile discussion with other internet gun nuts.
Posted by: shecky at Apr 19, 2008 12:25:41 PM
Forgive me my cynicism, but the article by Prof. Larry Bartel was nothing more than the cobbling together of some numbers without reference to their source combined with the most rudimentary of all logical fallacies, the appeal to authority: "He's a professor of gobbly-gook at such-and-such university."
Anyway ... the moral of the story is, politicians always take a huge risk when they attempt to characterized a constituency.
Posted by: fancythebard at Apr 19, 2008 12:34:36 PM
Banned Zombie Talk? What ever else would they talk about?
Posted by: Don Meaker at Apr 19, 2008 1:07:24 PM
When Obama said "cling to guns and religion" he meant only that he wanted the votes of those in attendance who apparently agreed with his speech. He's a politician, and an immature one at that. He has no concerns over culture or economics except those specifics which might help him get elected.
Posted by: Rich at Apr 19, 2008 1:08:24 PM
In the movie The President's Analyst, the title character realizes that the reason a CIA agent is so relaxed is that he can just release his stress by killing someone, and be perfectly legal while doing so. Perhaps this is the core of their happiness -- grumpy? You have the ability to KILL something!
Posted by: bill at Apr 19, 2008 1:22:44 PM
Mr. Shor wrote:
"But in Urban areas, where hunting is infeasible(and usually done with rented weapons) and shooting ranges are commonplace, gun ownership is mainly an indicator of paranoia and mistrust toward society(however well justified). People who are fearful of society tend to be less happy then the social norm."
I call BS.
Wrong on two counts. First, if hunting is infeasible, then how is it done with rented weapons? Rental of weapons to people for hunting purposes is so rare as to be virtually non-existent. Mr. Assertion, please meet Mr. Fact.
Second, gun ownership as an indicator of paranoia? Perhaps it's an indicator of one's experience with the use of law enforcement for protection. I like policemen as much as the next guy, but dialing 911 is a poor second choice when you're getting carjacked. You can't criticize a rational person's actions just because you don't like the world in which the actions are taken.
I own guns. Lots of them. I hunt very infrequently, but compete fairly often in competition shooting. And, I live in a suburban area. Does that make me or my fellows any more squirrelly than average? Don't know. We seem happy enough on the whole.
Mr. Obama made the same mistake lots of people do when they talk about issues they don't understand. He got called on it.
There would be a similar outcome if I talked about literary deconstruction or whatever the hell it is.
Simple as that.
Have a nice day.
:)
Posted by: JS at Apr 19, 2008 1:27:52 PM
"In general, whenever social research flies in the face of conventional wisdom, the research is usually wrong."
Yes, and 72.381% of statistics are made up on the spot. Conventional wisdom is just about the dumbest 'wisdom' available. It comes from, and/or is repeated by, folks like Rosie ("Fire has never melted steel") O'Donnell and her moronic ilk.
I can't answer for research I haven't seen, but at least getting actual numbers is a step in the right direction.
There are quite a few intervening variables I can conceive of on the happiness, but absent data to the contrary, most of the speculation above about what's 'wrong' with the conclusions are just rampant moonglow.
And I find it easier to discuss zombies with gun owners than anything with anti-Second Amendment moonbats.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at Apr 19, 2008 1:28:01 PM
What's with all this "gun owners are macho and paranoid" crap? I'm seeing a lot of ad-hominem and straw-man attacks here.
Sometimes gun ownership is a hobby, but what those who have no experiences with them often fail to understand is that for many people, it is not a hobby of any sort.
I have a couple of weapons, and I have no intention of ever hunting with them (I live in/near a major city in a very nice area). I am not wealthy, but I am managing to pursue an advanced degree in a field I truly enjoy. I am a happy, hard-working person who has every reason to defend his own life and lifestyle, and the training (through prior careers) to do so. I am not bitter, religious, or clinging to anything, nor am I any sort of firearm "hobbyist".
Many of my friends are like myself; well educated professionals. While there are bitter kooks out there, those who think *all* gun owners are bitter, bible-thumping nutters obviously don't know many gun owners, nor do they know there are many different types of them; there is a big divide between hunters and those like myself.
I own a gun for the same reason I own a hammer or screwdriver; as a tool to do a job. I find that generally, the real disagreement isn't over *guns*, it's about the lawful use of force, regardless of what you're using.
Posted by: Tim at Apr 19, 2008 1:28:06 PM
"In general, whenever social research flies in the face of conventional wisdom, the research is usually wrong."
Yes, and 72.381% of statistics are made up on the spot. Conventional wisdom is just about the dumbest 'wisdom' available. It comes from, and/or is repeated by, folks like Rosie ("Fire has never melted steel") O'Donnell and her moronic ilk.
I can't answer for research I haven't seen, but at least getting actual numbers is a step in the right direction.
There are quite a few intervening variables I can conceive of on the happiness, but absent data to the contrary, most of the speculation above about what's 'wrong' with the conclusions are just rampant moonglow.
And I find it easier to discuss zombies with gun owners than anything with anti-Second Amendment moonbats.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at Apr 19, 2008 1:29:34 PM
When you are being robbed, raped or murdered, try calling a cop. Trying to protect oneself is rational. Killing others is irrational. It's the criminals that are nuts, not law-abiding citizens. Sometimes smart people don't understand that.
Posted by: jorod at Apr 19, 2008 1:31:28 PM
I too call BS on Mr. Shor.
I grew up in a rural area, 8 miles from the nearest town. The guns we owned weren't for hunting, they were for varmint/pest/liberal control. Granted, the occasional game animal got taken with a rifle or shotgun, usually out of season and far from the game warden's notice, but rural gun ownership is generally for pest control and self-defense.
When the nearest police station is a 20 minute drive away (dirt roads are slow), you don't rely on the cops for protection from the local thieving hippies. You show the hippies the business end of a 12 gauge and extend to them an invitation to the rest of the world.
I also call BS on his wretched little attempt to tie mental illness with gun ownership. This is projection, pure and simple. Gun owners are some of the most mentally stable in society, as evidenced by the extremely low accident and murder rates to be found among CCW license holders.
Posted by: Randy Rager at Apr 19, 2008 1:40:54 PM
Tyler,
I highly recommend a trip to a gun range. Take a few friends, rent a 9 mm, buy 100 rounds and have at it. It's a fun time.
Plus, you'll have some experience with a gun, for, you know, the zombie uprisings.
Posted by: Xmas at Apr 19, 2008 1:46:44 PM
"I have never even touched a gun."
Come visit me in Vegas and I will take you shooting. The local ranges even have machine guns you can try.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Apr 19, 2008 1:55:18 PM
"But in Urban areas, where hunting is infeasible(and usually done with rented weapons)..."
Say what? I have NEVER heard of city dwellers renting hunting rifles.
"...gun ownership is mainly an indicator of paranoia and mistrust toward society(however well justified)...Most people live in Urban areas, so the latter stereotype(Violent and distrustful gun-nuts) prevails in society."
Oh, please. You criticize this study because it contradicts "conventional wisdom", then you pull this nonsense from your hindquarters. I'm an urban gun owner, and I'm far happier and less bitter than my left-wing co-workers, who complain about anything and everything, all of which is the fault of forces larger than themselves. Doesn't get any more paranoid and bitter than that.
BTW, it's "conventional wisdom" that children are routinely kidnapped by strangers and that there was a child sex abuse epidemic at day-care centers in the '80s.
Posted by: Dave S. at Apr 19, 2008 1:56:34 PM
"Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun"
Posted by: Billy Oblivion at Apr 19, 2008 2:04:17 PM
I'm happy when shooting.
When not, I'm usually annoyed by some politician or other trying to make me do something that's not in my best interests.
I keep hearing this talk from Democrats that people should vote in their economic interests. Are they offering anything other than zero sum wealth transfer? As in, my economic interests are someone else's disinterest? If so, I missed it. And if that's all it is, why would that make me happy?
Posted by: Andrew at Apr 19, 2008 2:10:42 PM
Well, it's pretty clear to this gun owner which comments are from non gun owners. This lezds to a conjecture: Non gun owners are unhappy because they live in an unhappy fantasy world.
Posted by: Fred at Apr 19, 2008 2:12:29 PM
So happiness causes guns!
They *are* fun. Blowing stuff away from a distance is a hoot. The varmint and hunting part makes sense. And it's good to have one on hand when you're menaced by Danish journalists: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/03/gun-incident-near-president-bushs-ranch/
Posted by: Colin Danby at Apr 19, 2008 2:31:48 PM
To Randy Rager and JS:
I'll respond to the rest of your critique later, but I'd invite you to re-read what I said:
"gun ownership is mainly an indicator of paranoia and mistrust toward society(however well justified). "
Sometimes paranoia can be justified. If you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood, then it is perfectly rational to own a gun. But, you are likely not as happy as your neighbor who does not harbor such rational fears. Naive people tend to be very happy.
To Jorg:
Conventional wisdom and stereotypes are usually correct. Think of it like a social version of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Pointing out a couple of high-profile failures does not discredit CW, because the sheer amount of conventional wisdom out there dwarfs the failures on a percentage basis.
That does not mean that we should discredit research that goes against CW, it only means that we should look at it with skepticism.
Most of the time, researchers have an incentive to publish a paper with an eye-popping claim. Later research usually shows that the claim is wrong once other variables are accounted for.
Other times, it doesn't. But that's relatively rare.
Posted by: David Shor at Apr 19, 2008 2:34:38 PM
Jeez, I think a lot of you are falling for political tricks. Its just a wedge-issue designed to secure votes. Gun owners (all other things the same) aren't a different "class" or "group" of Americans. One-third of the people I know are gun owners. They aren't paranoid, testosterone-pumped, insane, violent, or even especially happy. They are just people who happen to own guns.
I don't own a gun, but I've fired off thousands of rounds. Never seemed like a big deal to me.
I don't think Tyler was trying to imply causation here, only show that Obama was wrong: gun owners aren't bitter.
Posted by: Grant at Apr 19, 2008 2:40:13 PM
"I'll respond to the rest of your critique later, but I'd invite you to re-read what I said:"
Translation: I think really slow on my feet, you caught me in not one but TWO deviations from observable reality, therefore you must have misunderstood what I wrote.
Pull the other one, knucklehead.
Posted by: Randy Rager at Apr 19, 2008 2:45:01 PM
TO: Arthur Brooks, et al.
RE: Why Are They Happier?
I'd attribute part of the explanation to their owning weapons with which they could protect themselves in the event of a home invasion situation.
Therefore, being confident in that respect, they are less paranoid.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God made men. Colt made men equal.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 2:56:22 PM
To Dave S.:
"Say what? I have NEVER heard of city dwellers renting hunting rifles."
Neither of us have any data here, but here in Miami it's pretty common. The few people I know who hunt(Hunting isn't very popular with Jews and Cubans), do so at hunting reserves. You know, the places where they release birds to shoot. Those places do rent out guns.
"Oh, please. You criticize this study because it contradicts "conventional wisdom", then you pull this nonsense from your hindquarters."
There is no "study", just a WSJ columist with an axe to grind cherry-picking data from a database that is not publicly available. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary scrutiny.
I say this because I have a statistical background. It is very easy for confirmation bias to lead one to a faulty and eye-popping conclusion. After all, the point of social research is to find fault in conventional wisdom. But usually, after a sober analysis by other researchers, conventional wisdom comes out ahead.
"I'm an urban gun owner, and I'm far happier and less bitter than my left-wing co-workers, who complain about anything and everything, all of which is the fault of forces larger than themselves. Doesn't get any more paranoid and bitter than that."
Good for you, correlation is not destiny. But realistically, self-defense is the main reason to purchase a gun in an urban area, and people who perceive a need for self defense will be less happy then those who do not.
To package that in a way that is acceptable to you, "Naive people are happier than realistic ones".
"BTW, it's "conventional wisdom" that children are routinely kidnapped by strangers and that there was a child sex abuse epidemic at day-care centers in the '80s."
Conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, but the sheer amount of conventional wisdom in our society ensures that it is overwhelmingly correct on a percentage basis.
Think of it like the stock market. The market is almost always right. We tend to remember the market's failures(Great Depression, Sub-prime, etc.), but when you think about things on a percentage basis, we are looking at 5 or 6 events over the course of a century.
Posted by: David Shor at Apr 19, 2008 2:56:36 PM
"Translation: I think really slow on my feet, you caught me in not one but TWO deviations from observable reality, therefore you must have misunderstood what I wrote.
Pull the other one, knucklehead."
That was a bit unnecessary, don't you think? Keep things civil.
Translation: My Mathematical Statistics final is on Monday and today is a major Religious holiday for me.
Looking forward to your criticism!
Posted by: David Shor at Apr 19, 2008 2:56:44 PM
Renting a rifle? I grew up in a place that was deluged every year by city hunters, and I never heard of any gun shop doing that.
Posted by: RJ at Apr 19, 2008 2:57:57 PM
I'd agree that there is much to be said for the "conventional wisdom" among ordinary people, that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. As part of our social nature, people have a highly evolved sense of what might be called informal or "folk" seat-of-the pants "statistics" that works fairly well when applied to other people and social situations (as opposed to the more abstract realm of real statistics which can be applied to anything by formal rather than intuitive means.)
The problem here is that the CW in question is a false one -- it is a CW whose appeal is artificially amplified by the general bias of the mainstream media and the echo chamber of the celebs, politicians, and academics with whom they have a symbiotic relationship.
Posted by: newscaper at Apr 19, 2008 3:03:48 PM
TO: bill
RE: The President's Analyst; (Reprised)
"Perhaps this is the core of their happiness -- grumpy? You have the ability to KILL something!" -- bill
What about the up-tight jerks from the FBR? They had the same ability to kill as the operatives of the CEA. But they were hardly what any reasonably prudent individual would call 'happy'.
Then there's the poor Russian sap from the KGB(?), who sent his own father to Siberia. Not to forget the repressive guards at The Phone Company.
Your analogy falls apart too readily, bill.
However, in your favor was the Quantrill family......
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Happiness is knowing you're prepared for just about anything.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 3:10:44 PM
TO: David Shor, et al.
RE: Paranoia, Anyone?
"Sometimes paranoia can be justified. If you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood, then it is perfectly rational to own a gun." -- David Shor
There have been a number of home invasions in my city of 100K over the last year. Including several daylight burglaries within several blocks.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe it has something to do with how I spent 27 years of my life (infantry). But I (1) can read the write-ups in the newspaper and (2) know how to use weapons.
So, for you who are afraid of weapons, you're welcome to dial 911. As for me and my house, we'll protect ourselves AND dial 911....for wet-cleanup.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 3:16:50 PM
Gun owners are happier because they have more control over their destiny. Pretty simple. I have never heard of a business that rents guns to hunters but even if I found one I would not use their weapons. I don't know the weapon, the history of the weapon, or the owner. It would be crazy to assume a strange, loaded gun is either functional or safe. Gun ownership becomes a single issue for people that are concerned about their safety, the safety of their family and the control of the State. Check your history, confiscation and registration of weaponry is always a predecessor of totalitarianism.
Posted by: RickM at Apr 19, 2008 3:19:37 PM
TO: RickM, et al.
RE: It's Historical
"Gun ownership becomes a single issue for people that are concerned about their safety, the safety of their family and the control of the State. Check your history...." -- RickM
And TODAY is Patriot's Day! [Note: Only recognized in Massachusetts and Maine.] The day that a bunch of gun owners took their guns are rejected the government's taking them away.
Date: April 19, 1775
Places: Lexington and Concord
Antagonists: Citizens of the Massachusetts colony and the British Royal Army
Results: Our Independence
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who refuse to learn from history are DOOMED....]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 3:26:27 PM
TO: RickM, et al.
RE: It's Historical
"Gun ownership becomes a single issue for people that are concerned about their safety, the safety of their family and the control of the State. Check your history...." -- RickM
And TODAY is Patriot's Day! [Note: Only recognized in Massachusetts and Maine.] The day that a bunch of gun owners took their guns are rejected the government's taking them away.
Date: April 19, 1775
Places: Lexington and Concord
Antagonists: Citizens of the Massachusetts colony and the British Royal Army
Results: Our Independence
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who refuse to learn from history are DOOMED....]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 3:28:21 PM
Guns, at least high quality ones, are a decent investment. When properly cared for the value of most guns tend to increase steadily over time. And, of course, there is always a ready market for guns.
Posted by: Bobby at Apr 19, 2008 3:57:19 PM
By the way, if you are curious, I have never even touched a gun.
And there are many like you. And to all of you I offer this invitation (and there are many others in the gunblogosphere who offer it too):
If you have never shot a firearm, regardless of your position on the right to arms, and if you live near or visit the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, I invite you to go shooting for a day.
I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets, safety equipment, range fees and instruction.
All you have to do is show up.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at Apr 19, 2008 4:13:06 PM
Just guessing here, but gun ownership for purposes of defense indicates a willingness in advance to kill another human being under some circumstance.
I suspect that for many people, that willingness, in and of itself, is a marker of being "macho and paranoid" (and just scary in general).
And indeed, if you *aren't* able to use a gun in self-defense, it's perfectly rational to want to restrict the freedom of others to own guns, since the presence of a gun industry makes *you* less safe.
Despite the irrationality of many of the presenters on both sides, I find both sides of the debate to be entirely rational, each hoping to benefit themselves. Perhaps that is why, despite having strong views on the matter, I don't take the other side personally. They're fighting for what benefits them (and others of their ilk), and I'm fighting for what benefits me (and others of my ilk).
Posted by: Tom West at Apr 19, 2008 4:13:11 PM
David Shor:
I say this because I have a statistical background.
...
Good for you, correlation is not destiny. But realistically, self-defense is the main reason to purchase a gun in an urban area, and people who perceive a need for self defense will be less happy then those who do not.
Do you actually own any guns? Do you actually know any urban gun owners? Have you talked to them and understood their reasons and motivations for owning guns? From your grand pronouncements, I suspect that your background does not include any of these.
I am an urban gun owner who lives in a safe neighborhood. My wife and I own and keep loaded guns for self-defense, just in case. We are happy and positive people and feel more confident that we will be able to live safely in our home, compared to our grumpy and unarmed lefty neighbor who is suspicious of everything and everybody.
I suggest that you educate yourself about real gun owners in the real world before making up any more stuff.
Posted by: Kevin P. at Apr 19, 2008 4:20:30 PM
TO: Tom West
RE: The Arms of Sanity
"And indeed, if you *aren't* able to use a gun in self-defense, it's perfectly rational to want to restrict the freedom of others to own guns, since the presence of a gun industry makes *you* less safe." -- Tom West
But you will never, repeat NEVER, eliminate weapons.
Look at Rwanda in the mid-90s; one million people killed. Mostly by long knives, called machetes.
So, in opposition to YOUR 'argument', I offer that going to a gun-fight with ONLY a knife is certainly irrational. After all, look at Merry Old [defenseless] England. Only the criminals are allowed to have guns. Why? Because they're the ones who openly violate the 'law'.
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised. -- Niccolo Machiavelli]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 4:22:25 PM
Why do the 7 rounds of 12 gauge, 00 buck infer an advance willingness to kill? I have the willingness to pull the trigger 8 times, I have a willingness to aim center mast for each pull of the trigger, and I have a willingness to prod the leftovers with my toe as I reload. I'm not intentionally trying to kill. I'm trying to discourage and stop. If the person on the other end of the muzzle is still willing, I'm willing to repeat the cycle until all of my ammunition is expended. Currently, that means I'll reload about 35 times (but if anyone knows of any good deals on 12 ga. shotgun ammo in NoVA, I'm a fan of "there is no such thing as too much ammo").
Posted by: RickM at Apr 19, 2008 4:29:18 PM
So if a friend of yours is feeling depressed and wants to commit suicide, give him a gun, that'll sheer him up!
Posted by: Nicolas at Apr 19, 2008 4:53:46 PM
So, in opposition to YOUR 'argument', I offer that going to a gun-fight with ONLY a knife is certainly irrational.
Not at all. If you do not believe that you will be able to deliberately kill another human being, even under provocation, then it makes sense to ban guns. If you are not going to be armed at all, better the other side have a knife than a gun. You are much more likely to survive the encounter. (Note: *likely*. There's never any certainties where real-life is concerned.)
Note, people who hold this sort of view have probably never been personally exposed to any real violence. Happily for society (if perhaps unhappily for gun owners), that's a higher and higher percentage of the population as we become a more and more peaceful society. (At least among the middle class, which is what counts for voting purposes.)
Posted by: Tom West at Apr 19, 2008 5:16:39 PM
TO: Tom West
RE: Okay
"So, in opposition to YOUR 'argument', I offer that going to a gun-fight with ONLY a knife is certainly irrational. -- Chuck Pelto
Not at all." -- Tom West, in reply
Nice knowing ya.
"If you do not believe that you will be able to deliberately kill another human being, even under provocation, then it makes sense to ban guns." -- Tom West
Won't matter if (1) the other human being has a weapon and (2) is willing to use it against you....for WHATEVER 'reason'; monetary, religious, political, historyisrifewithreasonstokill.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ban the bow! -- Neanderthal t-shirts]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 5:31:54 PM
I'd be surprised if this relationship held when controlling for some geographic variables. Also, it is less likely that conservatism makes you happier than it is that people are happier when their preferred party is in power. See:
Rafael Di Tella, Robert MacCulloch (2005) Partisan Social Happiness
Review of Economic Studies 72 (2)
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, to the committed leftist there is nothing but political power. That is the alpha and omega of their world. Hmmm, would that really make you happy? I think not.
Posted by: red at Apr 19, 2008 6:17:39 PM
I'd be surprised if this relationship held when controlling for some geographic variables. Also, it is less likely that conservatism makes you happier than it is that people are happier when their preferred party is in power. See:
Rafael Di Tella, Robert MacCulloch (2005) Partisan Social Happiness
Review of Economic Studies 72 (2)
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, to the committed leftist there is nothing but political power. That is the alpha and omega of their world. Hmmm, would that really make you happy? I think not.
Posted by: red at Apr 19, 2008 6:19:08 PM
Tyler: the link to "Gross National Happiness" is resolving to an article about the costs of fertilizer in Africa. Here's the right one (amazon): http://tinyurl.com/4zuulp
Posted by: Al at Apr 19, 2008 6:26:44 PM
TO:
RE: Happiness....
"...it is less likely that conservatism makes you happier than it is that people are happier when their preferred party is in power." --
....at least in THIS country, does not depend on which political party holds either the White House or the Congress.
I've survived quite well, even though the Bill and Hill Show was going on. And I attribute that to personal 'skills' more than to the Dhimmicrats.
Hope that helps....but I have my doubts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 19, 2008 6:31:47 PM
I don't know about gun owners, but I have an answer for why conservatives are happier.
I read that Protestant fundamentalist women have more orgasms than other women, and we
know that "intimate relations" are a major key to happiness. Of course, they may be
having those orgasms because they are happier. Uh oh, not another nasty econometric problem
of identification and endogeneity!
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 19, 2008 7:05:40 PM
Tyler,
I’m a self-confessed “rifle looney” (as defined by the writer John Barsness) and I’d be happy to introduce you to the joys of using firearms. Any time you wish we’ll head out to the Arlington-Fairfax Isaac Walton League and punch some paper on the rifle/handgun range or shoot clay pigeons at trap or skeet.
Before you know it we’ll change the nature of the discussions on this board to the relative merits of the .30-06 vs. the 7mm Remington Magnum or maybe preferences for large slow moving bullets vs. small high velocity bullets, the Elmer Keith vs. Jack O’Conner arguments.
Sincerely, a happy, free market advocate rifle looney
Posted by: Dave Richardson at Apr 19, 2008 8:05:42 PM
So how come nobody has touched the income disparity? What possible causes are there for gun-owners to have higher income? I can advance two hypotheses:
1) Gun owners are generally more responsible people than non-owners, and this carries over into their work lives - being more responsible, they tend to be promoted, given raises, and save more than non-owners, and end up with higher income.
2) Gun control is only politically viable where there are lots of liberals near lots of blacks, and as a result, gun control has disarmed mostly the urban poor, but nobody else, skewing the income of gun-owners upwards.
Posted by: Anthony at Apr 19, 2008 8:54:43 PM
At this important holiday, remember the basic template for a Jewish holiday:
They tried to kill us.
They failed.
Let's eat.
Why do the people trying to kill all Israelis fail? I think it is because the Israelis shoot back. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Posted by: Fred at Apr 19, 2008 9:13:39 PM
My God! Someone at the American Enterprise Institute has statistics that exactly and exclusively refute a Democratic frontrunner's recent statements. And Tyler Cowen has reprinted them. I believe them completely. I really do! ;-)
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Apr 19, 2008 9:24:19 PM
"In general, whenever social research flies in the face of conventional wisdom, the research is usually wrong."
Nonsense. I hold up the minimum wage as a prime example where the common 'wisdom' is nonsense.
Posted by: Russ Nelson at Apr 19, 2008 9:24:59 PM
Y'all keep talking about all these Zombies on the loose. Is that like that movie, "Dawn of the Dead Folks." I need to clean my guns and load some extra clips.
Posted by: lutonmoore at Apr 19, 2008 9:49:47 PM
"My God! Someone at the American Enterprise Institute has statistics that exactly and exclusively refute a Democratic frontrunner's recent statements."
Mostly a Pragmatist is a poster child for ad hominem argument.
Posted by: Person of Choler at Apr 19, 2008 11:00:33 PM
Plenty of ranges let you try out guns. It's a fun experience.
"BTW I'm a bit skittish around guns myself. I think it dates back to when I was in high school and we were at this kid's house, and he started pointing his dad's gun at us like in a low-budget after-school special."
Sorry, but that kid sounds like an idiot. I don't blame you.
Posted by: Robinson at Apr 20, 2008 12:01:44 AM
I have a small arsenal for home defense. We live in a hurricane area so after Katrina even some lefty neighbors decided to arm themselves.
Also, Cubans could parachute onto the field behind our high school (Wolverines!). And don't forget zombies...
Posted by: TampaM4 at Apr 20, 2008 12:35:50 AM
I wonder if little boys who play with toy guns are happier than little boys whose parents don't allow them to have toy guns? I'd bet the boys with the toy guns are happier.
Posted by: Flash Gordon at Apr 20, 2008 1:59:38 AM
My hypothesis (I don't know if anyone has said anything about this yet) is that gun owners are more likely to be religious and religious people are more likely to be happy. (I'm a non-gun owner happy atheist, btw.)
Posted by: J. at Apr 20, 2008 3:50:01 AM
Flash,
No, the boys w/o (store-bought) toy guns are happier--they have the additional sense of accomplishment that comes from having built their own.
Posted by: Kirk Parker at Apr 20, 2008 4:14:58 AM
First, was Obama saying that gun owners are bitter or that bitter people own guns? The latter is not really addressed by Tyler's/Arthur's statistics.
Second, all this talk about protecting oneself in the event of a carjacking or home invasion fails to consider how extremely rare these events generally are... which seems like the very definition of paranoia to me.
Posted by: em at Apr 20, 2008 12:34:29 PM
David- "But realistically, self-defense is the main reason to purchase a gun in an urban area, and people who perceive a need for self defense will be less happy then those who do not."
if someone buys a gun because they percieve a need for self-defense that doesn't make them paranoid. additionally, if the the gun alieviates a percieved threat in the mind of the gun owner then they are perfectly capable of being happier than the next guy after they buy it. that it may be nothing more than a placebo is immaterial.
it would be interesting to see brook's data taken beyond urban/rural to actual population density. there are large cities (houston, dallas and san antonio are all top 10 in the u.s.) that are less dense than a new york or chicago. the later can do more to allay crime by a cop on every corner type policing. the former are sprawl cities where the police can't do the same. so there likely lots of happy handgun owners in urban areas.
there are also dense areas in many smaller communities of 100K people or so.
having a gun can also alow you to laugh at media peddled fear by saying "they won't be able to get away with that where my property line begins".
the self-reliance yields more happiness and can come froom gun ownership argument is something that hopefully will be researched a little more. i'd bet it holds up against slew of attempts to discredit it.
Posted by: urban at Apr 20, 2008 3:54:38 PM
TO: em
RE: Paranoia, Anyone?
"...all this talk about protecting oneself in the event of a carjacking or home invasion fails to consider how extremely rare these events generally are... which seems like the very definition of paranoia to me." -- em
You're entitled to your honestly held opinion. However, paranoia is a clinical condition where there is no real threat involved.
However, yesterday, someone did something rude to the flag I was flying for Patriots Day. And while I was chatting with the police who responded to take my complaint, a call came over their radio of some young punk firing rounds into a car from his car in the vicinity.
Paranoia you say?
I think not.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you're not paranoid, it's because you're not paying attention.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 20, 2008 4:56:06 PM
all this talk about protecting oneself in the event of a carjacking or home invasion fails to consider how extremely rare these events generally are... which seems like the very definition of paranoia to me.
A kitchen fire is statistically unlikely. But I keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen.
I reject your definition of paranoia.
Posted by: RJ at Apr 20, 2008 6:38:51 PM
"Before you know it we’ll change the nature of the discussions on this board to the relative merits of the .30-06 vs. the 7mm Remington Magnum or maybe preferences for large slow moving bullets vs. small high velocity bullets, the Elmer Keith vs. Jack O’Conner arguments."
30-06 of course. Much wider range of bullet moulds and loads. Although I'm really kind of looking for a nice sporterized 30-40 Krag.
Posted by: rmark at Apr 20, 2008 7:59:42 PM
I’m going out on a limb and hypothesize that one reason using a firearm to deter crime appears so “rare” is that it is much underreported.
My own experience bears this out; in the early 1980’s I used my concealed revolver to deter a mugging/car jacking/robbery/attempted murder in an underground parking garage in downtown Baltimore. Since I did not have a carry permit (extremely difficult to obtain in Maryland) I didn’t report the incident and I’m certain the young gentleman I faced down wasn’t talking either. Luckily a shot wasn’t fired and the only victim was my underwear.
Posted by: Dave Richardson at Apr 20, 2008 8:03:24 PM
Oh darn. I knew exactly what I was going to comment, but the very first commenter beat me too it.
Posted by: Tim at Apr 20, 2008 11:08:22 PM
"Of course, they may be having those orgasms because they are happier. Uh oh, not another nasty econometric problem
of identification and endogeneity!"
Ugh. When I read that the thought "what kind of instruments could we use?" flashed through my mind - Pavlovian response after all those years of grad school. And then my mind replied and then I said "shut up mind!" and decided not to ponder that question anymore.
That was mean Barkley. Funny-mean.
Posted by: notsneaky at Apr 21, 2008 8:01:10 AM
TO: David Richardson, et al.
RE: A Similar Story
"I didn’t report the incident and I’m certain the young gentleman I faced down wasn’t talking either. Luckily a shot wasn’t fired and the only victim was my underwear." -- David Richardson
A comrade-in-arms gave a similar account, albeit it on a deserted gravel road; he driving his company truck full of expensive tools, his four 'friends' an old four-door.
They'd been following him for some time and when he took the turn onto the gravel road they made their play; pulling in front of him and cutting him off.
As they got out of the car, he got out of his truck and lowered a .357 at them; using the heavy truck door for cover and a steady aiming platform.
They got back in their car and drove off....hurriedly.
I doubt if he soiled his pants, being a combat veteran from Nam.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 21, 2008 10:26:43 AM
"In general, whenever social research flies in the face of conventional wisdom, the research is usually wrong."
I think the problem with this statement is that this story CONFIRMS conventional wisdom. I think you really need an odd perspective to think otherwise.
Posted by: Tom at Apr 21, 2008 11:02:26 AM
Several commenters here made a very interesting point, albeit not one they intended to make. It goes something like this, paraphrased:
"I don't own my guns for fun; I own them for security.[...], so I'm not one of those gun nuts. My guns are just tools."
Note plural on the end of "gun". Huh.
Disclosure: I really did own one for perceived security for a year or two many years ago. Difference is that it was ONE.
Count me among the "most people who talk about owning guns are a bit creepy" crowd. Including, sadly, many of my coworkers, past and present. You can almost hear the inner voice wishing they had an opportunity to use them against human targets.
Posted by: M1EK at Apr 21, 2008 12:09:23 PM
Shooting a handgun and looking down into the blue glow of the core of the training nuclear reactor at the University of Maryland rank as my two most phobia-reducing events of my life.
BTW, there is a gun range near Fredericksburg where you can shoot submachineguns (full-auto weapons that fire handgun style ammunition, like the Uzi):
http://www.indoorrange.com/
Definitely go with someone who has had the NRA safety course when you first shoot, or better yet do the course yourself:
http://www.nrahq.org/education/training/find.asp?State=VA&Type=BPistol
For example:
"Fairfax - Saturday, June 21, 2008, Comfort Inn Hotel, $145
Chip Lohman, 703-371-4234. , support@safepistol.com
Class types: Basic Pistol
Course Notes:
Price includes optional student gun rental and ammunition, indoor range fee, film, laser practice, all class materials, professional classroom and refreshments. 1 to 1 coaching at the range. "
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Apr 21, 2008 1:16:28 PM
TO: M1EK
RE: Projection?
"You can almost hear the inner voice wishing they had an opportunity to use them against human targets." -- M1EK
Nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Projection, as described by others, is often their own wishful thinking.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 21, 2008 1:24:28 PM
There are two kinds of people in this world: those with guns, and those who dig. You dig.
Posted by: jake at Apr 21, 2008 1:42:45 PM
Guns are associated with lower economic class stereotypes: i.e. The rural white redneck stereotype, or the black urban criminal stereotype. Therefore, privileged groups such as upper middle class white 'liberals' hate guns, because they see them as declasse. The need for gun control is deeply rooted in upper-class disgust and fear of the lower-classes.
Any rational person knows that you can't expect the War on Guns to be any more successful than the War on Drugs... But being 'for gun control' isn't about successfully banning guns. It is about distinguishing yourself as upper-class. Even if gun control is a total failure, by supporting gun control you show that you aren't some 'poor dirty redneck', or 'black ghetto thug'. By supporting gun control, you will have a completely acceptable stance to the other upper-class white urbanites at your next cocktail party. It says, 'I am educated, I am white, I am professional, and I live in a neighborhood will swift police response and not some shitty ghetto or dirt farm'.
People who aren't for gun control are probably happier, because they don't feel the need for class-posturing. Since guns are declasse, people who own guns are obviously not obsessed with appearances.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 21, 2008 3:09:42 PM
yns,
No, you are clearly the mean one. "Instrument" my foot, or maybe my shoe.
Heck, how do we not know that those orgasmic Protestant fundamentalist women
are not so because their husbands are more likely to be happy gun owners who
can get it up more than the obviously insufficiently masculine non-gun owners,
quite aside from your extra suggestions about "instruments"? Heck, the endogeneities
here are nearly endless...
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 21, 2008 4:30:48 PM
Barkley, that was sort of my point. The endless possibilities.
Or is there some small possibility that you're being remotely serious here? That's not how I read your original message - rather I though you were mocking something which very much deserved some mocking.
Posted by: notsneaky at Apr 21, 2008 8:08:10 PM
nys,
Endless possibilities, those endless possibilities... :-).
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 21, 2008 10:56:24 PM
This is interesting. Maybe you have to distinguish between "gun owner" - your dedicated hunter or ex-vet who collects, and "gun nut" - the kind of guy who brings a loaded handgun to band practice, likes to brag to everyone about his guns at the slightest excuse and is a die hard NRA member. I certainly knew people meeting the latter description growing up in NH, and they never seemed very happy to me, they seemed like desperately insecure people with serious issues. Meet enough of them and you might think some element of licensing isn't such a bad idea.
Posted by: vanya at Apr 22, 2008 7:15:53 AM
TO: vanya
RE: My!
"..."gun nut" - the kind of guy who brings a loaded handgun to band practice, likes to brag to everyone about his guns at the slightest excuse and is a die hard NRA member." -- vanya
Aren't 'we' full of hate, today.
First off, it depends on the kind of band. Guns are not allowed on school grounds. That's why that kid in South Carolina thought he could get away with mass murder. Schools, and other places, are nothing more than 'shooting gallaries' for those who do not follow the 'rules'.
On the other hand, if it was a band practice off school grounds and the person had either a CCW permit or the state/home-rule-city allowed for open carry, what's wrong? I'll tell ya. NOTHING!
As for 'bragging' about guns. Who doesn't brag about their hobby/interest?
On the third hand, what's wrong with being an NRA member? You had something against Charlton Heston, perhaps?
RE: As for Happiness...
"I certainly knew people meeting the latter description growing up in NH, and they never seemed very happy to me, they seemed like desperately insecure people with serious issues." -- vanya
....I have reason to doubt your veracity on this. See my comment immediately above as to why. Indeed, I think you, as with M1EK (above) are 'projecting'. As you obviously seem 'unhappy' to me.
Do YOU 'own a gun'? You'd make good anecdotal evidence to the premise being discussed here.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Be Prepared. -- Boy Scouts]
P.S. What are your thoughts on the Boy Scouts?
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 22, 2008 10:13:58 AM
Chuck, your affectations are distracting from what I presume is your point; they're, in fact, making _my_ point better than any words I could actually type.
I say this not to do you a favor, but because they're so annoying that I'd rather suffer an insufficiently-made point than have to continue seeing them.
Your pal,
M1EK
Posted by: M1EK at Apr 22, 2008 10:19:25 AM
By gosh by gun, we have the answer. If you are a gun owner you are happier than if you are not a gun owner,
unless you are nuts, in which case you are not happier than a non-gun owner. Wow, that was easy. No problem.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 22, 2008 12:20:01 PM
TO: M1EK
RE: Affections? Moi?
"I say this not to do you a favor, but because they're so annoying that I'd rather suffer an insufficiently-made point than have to continue seeing them." -- M1EK
Are you projecting again?
And, if you don't care to seeing my 'affections', I recommend you stop reading my comments.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Are you and vanya 'related'?
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 22, 2008 2:11:26 PM
Tyler, if you're ever in Denver drop me a line and we can round up some economists and have a day at the range.
Another thing gun owners are, is almost always eager to induct a new guy into the club!
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Apr 22, 2008 4:41:22 PM
No, Chuck, I'm not projecting. People who make guns the centers of their lives, in my experience, are socially maladjusted weirdos, just like, to be fair, people who make collecting 1920s 78s the center of their lives or comic book collectors or most obsessives. Fetishizing objects just isn't healthy, whether guns, cars, dolls, or women's dress shoes.
Posted by: vanya at Apr 23, 2008 10:04:21 AM
TO: vanya
RE: A Serious Case of Denial
"I'm not projecting. People who make guns the centers of their lives, in my experience, are socially maladjusted weirdos, just like, to be fair, people who make collecting 1920s 78s the center of their lives or comic book collectors or most obsessives." -- vanya
The problem here, dearie, is that your earlier post was that you went overboard describing anyone who (1) brings a gun with him pretty much everywhere he goes, (2) likes to talk about his collection and (3) is a member of the NRA is some kinda 'nut'.
On the one hand, as I pointed out in my earlier reply, anyone how has a CCW permit pretty much fits criteria number 1. Even though it's perfectly legal.
On the other hand, I don't know of many people who will not talk about a hobby if the opportunity presents itself. Again, something perfectly legal.
On the third hand, I do believe that the Bill of Rights, again, something perfectly legal, allows Freedom of Association.
Now. If you're so set against doing things that are perfectly legal, and you certainly are by these lights, hold on to your panties.....
...YOU'RE SOME KINDA 'NUT'!
Hence my evaluation of you as 'projecting', vis-a-vis 'gun nuts'.
Hope that helps. But I have my doubts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Life is like a box of chocolates. It's full of nuts.]
P.S. I think we've encountered one of them here.....
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 23, 2008 11:45:01 AM
Guns make one safer under certain circumstances. Offsetting that, they also increase one's risk of suicide, extending out over 6 years after the initial gun purchase. (For the average owner, gun ownership has been linked to increase risk of homicide fatality, but people's dispositions and exposures to external risk varies).
At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those with tendencies towards melancholy would forgo a firearm. It might even be rational.
Posted by: Measure for Measure at Apr 23, 2008 8:57:04 PM
TO: All
RE: More Reasons
Two more driving shootings here over the weekend; within hours of each other. Similar to the one I reported (above) hearing about over the police radio while talking to an officer about another matter.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at Apr 29, 2008 11:27:00 AM
Guns are a symbol for the ideal of the American Freedom from Tyranny and individual control of the means of coersion.
Every state has some form of legitimized violence against it's citizens, and though the logistics required to repel serious abuses of The People by the already "well regulated" force of Government would be extremely difficult for the general public to organise effectively (especially given the lack of Civics education in the US). In the unlikely event it was called for , the very presence of guns in unknown and private hands along with the clear statement that the People have the right to bear arms and at the very least stage an armed Protest if the State fails them , gives men at least some evidence that they are still Free men indeed.
Posted by: Doug B at Apr 29, 2008 10:08:52 PM
