"[G]uns are an important signifier of virility and power and hence are an important way violent masculinity is constructed and then sold to an audience. In fact, the presence of guns in magazine and newspaper ads is crucial to communicating the extent of a movies violent content images of gun-toting macho males pervade the visual landscape" Katz (2003, Advertising and the construction of violent white masculinity: from eminem to clinique for men, G. Dines, J. Humez, Editors , Gender, Race and Class in Media: A Text Reader, (second ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks), pp. 349358 ) To what extent can we explain US gun demand as a form of pistolisation? (i.e. "a socially constructed cultural practice that has links to conceptions of masculine power and, in some instances, has been constructed as a symbol of manly prosperity", Cukier and Sheptyck, 2012, Globalization of gun culture transnational reflections on pistolization and masculinity, flows and resistance, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, Vol 40, pp 3-19)
This is a bit silly. Sure, guns featured in movie posters often do portray a sense of its violent content. Do you know why? Because the characters in these movie posters using the guns are NOT using them in a responsible or mundane manner. Are these movie posters illustrating a retired man cleaning his 22 caliber pistol? Are they portraying an army veteran shooting his 1911 on a firing range obeying all of the range's rules? Heck no. The movie posters depicting guns almost always depict the characters using the guns in a violent and menacing fashion, such as: http://judasboogie.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/226595face-off-posters-tm.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/82/The_Rock_(movie).jpg/220px-The_Rock_(movie).jpg http://www.technofile.com/images/bd/shootemup.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/PaybackPoster.jpg/220px-PaybackPoster.jpg Pure psychobabble. The same EXACT line of reasoning can be used regarding cars... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Poster.jpg/220px-Fast_and_Furious_Poster.jpg ...and knives. http://trainwreckstl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/halloween.jpg
Psychology can certainly be employed to cars. That will lead to several aspects of behaviour in which we'd struggle to use the rational choice model to explain behaviour. We of course already knew that this type of psychological analysis can be applied to guns. Interestingly, it provides a different explanation for why watching cop shows and probability of gun ownership are- ceteris paribus- discovered to be significantly related. Rather than reflecting a reaction to fears, it becomes more about celebration of the gun-ho
All that psychobabble bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is fine,but it doesn't explain the growing number of women who are buying guns for the first time
We certainly can refer to gender differences in preference formation. That's a little obvious though. Got anything a little more high powered?
There certainly will be multiple reasons for gun ownership. They were just a tool for me, useful for the farm and for protection. However, the question is "what is gun culture?". To some it can be traced to the "fear and loathing hypothesis". However, to others, it is more an advertisement inspired fetishism
Another backhanded attempt to demonize guns. Guilt by association, I believe is the term. As usual, you pet studies focus on the evil whites with their evil guns and how their "gun culture" is somehow to blame for the world's problems. How much more does a picture of a gun raise the level of testosterone, adrenaline, or "violence" than does a picture of a chiansaw, sports car or supermodel? It is a well know fact, to at least the real scientific community, that subjects viewing vivid colors like red will be able to lift more weight than those looking at pink hues. All these factors would have to be controlled for and idependantly tested for every cultural group on the earth to be of any real value. Except in the last 500 years, guns have played no part in man's level of violence throughout the ages. As for "violent white masculinity," how do you guage the level of violence for Europeans as opposed to all the other groups? Taking guns out of the equasion, were people somehow less violent than they were before guns were invented? The Aztec, Maori, Zulu, and Samauri were all such peace-loving peoples before being courupted by the West and their guns. Yeah, right. Your studies are very narrow and biased, useless when applied to the greater population of the planet. Would the people of Southern Africa and Central America be better off today if the Zulu and Aztec were still in power enslaving, ritually torturing and hacking each other to death? Do you even know enough about world history to comment?
A mere reference to the published analysis into gun culture. The analysis into testosterone effects is quite distinct. This is a debate over gun culture, as I've indicated with the reference to the 'fear and loathing hypothesis' (which is quite distinct from the analysis in the opening post) The original post actually references a paper that covers multiple countries, including South Africa (the clue was in the title!)
No need...It's as I suspected,you have no answer,just spewing the old stereotypes such as 'gun owners use their guns to make up for small penisis'
Shame! I was hoping you were going to provide some of the feminist analysis: e.g. Quigley's "until women learn to use the weapons of men to defend themselves, they will continue to be the victims of men".
Again, do you really think guns have made the indiginous populations in Africa, Central America and elsewhere more violent than they were 600 years ago? This would prove the real effects of guns on society. I believe people are no different now than they have been for thousands of years, and if anything, guns allow for more safety for armed citizens. The lack of a "gun culture" you fret about allowed millions of unarmed souls to perish under liberal/communits dictators like Stalin, Moa and Pol Pot. If those people had have been allowed to have firearms I doubt that there would have been such mass genocides. By the way, who is more violent? Someone who puts a few small holes in a person with a gun, or someone who slices, hacks and impales them with edged weapons?
To understand South Africa's gun culture we would certainly have to refer to the consequences of apartheid. Of interest, we do see clear gender divides. Whilst males strongly oppose greater gun control, its the reverse for women. Masculinity is of clear importance. For example, **** and McKenzie (1998, From Defense to Development: Redirecting Military Resources in South Africa. International Development Research Centre) present the following quote: If you have a BMW, a cell phone and a glamorous woman, youve got a lot; if youve got a gun as well, youve got everything
Plenty of instances in our history that sets aside the notion that firearms are only 'for men'... And women now are less willing to remain victims of anyone,male or female, and are finding waysto prevent it, either by firearms. or other methods
Who said they were only for men? This is about gun culture, which arguably includes notions of masculinity. Why do you think wife beaters are more likely to own guns than non-wife beaters? We'd have to go for some third variable to explain it or some form of self-selection bias?
Ahh the mythical 'gun culture' 'wife beaters' now?..what's the next stereotype....toothless hilbillies?
It can be applied to knives, power tools, and heavy machinery as well. But there is no ISOLATED BEHAVIOR with guns, as other posters and myself have described already. Also, there there have been no studies that demonstrate that this behavior negatively affects them. Interesting but unsubstantiated theory. I think that most people watch TV shows because they are entertaining, not because they have a fetish towards an item portrayed on the TV show. I am a fan of guns, but some of the shows on Discovery Channel that focus on guns, such as 'American Guns' and 'Sons of Guns,' are just not entertaining (or educational), and hence I will not watch them. I think it's really as simple as that, and the haphazard psychoanalysis that you are utilizing is not benefiting anyone.
Have you really talked to a civilian who has actually used a gun for self defense? I don't think you have. There is nothing macho about them.
Its something of course harnessed by the advertising machine. Early efforts, for example, linked handguns with the English aristocracy. Masculine demands shifted from the sword to the firearm. I've referred directly to the evidence. Wife beaters are found to have a higher probability of gun ownership than the general population. I was wondering whether you had an explanation for that objective finding. No need to hide
<phone survey> ring ring. Do you own guns? <wife beater>. Yes I do. Why would someone answer yes to something that would get them thrown in prison? <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/FLAMEBAIT/INSULT >>>
The analysis is derived from national data and interviews of women in battered women shelters. That you're not aware of the evidence doesn't impress!
A Call of Duty fan! Awesome! James Sheptycki and Wendy Cukier are good for a laugh. They naively believe that they can eradicate violent crime through international arms treaties, gun control laws, and government-imposed social engineering schemes. Its a nice dream, but their numbers and conclusions simply do not hold up under scrutiny. These people need to get a life and stop trying to control everyone else.
