The Liberal Gun Club Forum

L.A. Times Op-Ed by Jennifer Carlson, who wrote Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

As men doubt their ability to provide, their desire to protect becomes all the more important. They see carrying a gun as a masculine duty and the gun itself as a vehicle for a hardened kind of care-work — caring for others by shielding them from danger, with the threat of lethal force.

We tend to get mired in public policy debates that isolate the impact of guns on violence, and nothing more. We wonder to what degree they contribute to suicide rates or homicide rates. But firearms have a larger purpose in our postindustrial society. In Michigan and other places hit hard by the economic downturn, men's guns can address social insecurities far beyond crime.

The gun rights platform is not just about guns. It's also about a crisis of confidence in the American dream. And this is one reason gun control efforts ignite such intense backlashes: Restrictions are received as a personal affront to men who find in guns a sense of duty, relevance and even dignity.

What is carry by women?

She left out penis size.

What is carry by women?

Penis envy.

I find her thesis interesting, especially the political/class angle. I will be reading this article and others by Jennifer Carlson more closely.

I don't know what to make of the writer's gendered framing. I know that my understandings and expectations about gender roles are so different from most Americans that I find what most consider "normal" to be upsetting, regressive, and an affront to decency. So, I'll just skip that part.

Guns as talismans against insecurity? Youbetcha! Guns as a way to get Americans to think about systemic economic insecurity in individual terms and a way to encourage people to seek solutions for their problems individually rather than systemically? I'd go so far as to say that's one of the critical ways gun politics function in the United States. I'd say that's likely the biggest driver of the right's skyrocketing interest in gun ownership as an issue over the last 50 years.

The author might only be catching a piece of that, and tying it up in some weird anxiety about masculinity, but the notion that people treat gun ownership as a way to stave-off the things they fear (whether or not they are actually things guns can fix) is spot on, in my opinion.

An oversimpifacation at best. One of the reasons for concealed carry is a perception that the police can not guarantee saftey. An example I was taliking with my son-in-law over Memorial Day. My daughter and her female friends are on a dart team that makes the circuit of bars. While they don't get loaded they do drink so their is a driver, one of the husbands with a concealed carry permit. He does not drink but is the chauffer. Some of the women have concealed carry but alcohol even in limited quantities and guns do not mix. The concealed carry is just another layer of protection. He sits in a corner and does not bother them. If one of the women took the the pledge , at least temporarily, he would not be necessary.

Concealed carrry is more of a no-confidence vote in the societies ability to guarantee a citizens safety than a Freudian statement. I don't have the numbers but the anti-gun crowd was shocked by the number of women getting concealed carry permits. It is not a "male" thing.

beto wrote:An oversimpifacation at best. One of the reasons for concealed carry is a perception that the police can not guarantee saftey. An example I was taliking with my son-in-law over Memorial Day. My daughter and her female friends are on a dart team that makes the circuit of bars. While they don't get loaded they do drink so their is a driver, one of the husbands with a concealed carry permit. He does not drink but is the chauffer. Some of the women have concealed carry but alcohol even in limited quantities and guns do not mix. The concealed carry is just another layer of protection. He sits in a corner and does not bother them. If one of the women took the the pledge , at least temporarily, he would not be necessary.

Concealed carrry is more of a no-confidence vote in the societies ability to guarantee a citizens safety than a Freudian statement. I don't have the numbers but the anti-gun crowd was shocked by the number of women getting concealed carry permits. It is not a "male" thing.

Yep.

The rise in conceal carry permits may have something to do with the requirement to have them. Thank you Captain Obvious. For many areas that requirement that didn't exist in the past. 50 to 100 years ago, you put your gun in your suit pocket and went about your day. Kid's back in my high school strapped on a pistol, bundled up and went trapping. They were concealed carrying and/or open carrying. They had handguns and shotguns and rifles in the trunks of their cars at school. Imagine that scenario today. My kid reminded me she couldn't take a plastic knife to school to cut her store bought, peanut free, treats for the class.

I don't carry, but I've been thinking about getting a permit just to keep myself from getting into some sort of local "I didn't know" trouble if I had a gun in my car or carried it from hunting onto the wrong spot, or transported my guns through a town that had different gun laws, etc., etc.

A CCW permit would act as a form of "don't take my gun from me, I didn't mean it, honest mistake" insurance, as well as, making purchases easier.

I've been thinking about getting a permit just to keep myself from getting into some sort of local "I didn't know" trouble if I had a gun in my car or carried it from hunting onto the wrong spot, or transported my guns through a town that had different gun laws

This is the primary reason I am interested in carry permits. There are still restrictions, but they are far less likely to get you in trouble than without the permit.

fknauss wrote:

I've been thinking about getting a permit just to keep myself from getting into some sort of local "I didn't know" trouble if I had a gun in my car or carried it from hunting onto the wrong spot, or transported my guns through a town that had different gun laws

This is the primary reason I am interested in carry permits. There are still restrictions, but they are far less likely to get you in trouble than without the permit.

In Texas it also means you're good to go for any buy going through a FFL dealer. No waiting. Full throttle impulse!

I really hate it when amateur shrinks tell me why I do the things I do and Jennifer Carlson can piss up a rope with her speculation. Goddamned city people. I have had a concealed carry license for a couple of decades plus. I am not insecure about my ability to provide for my family and I am not afraid of any bad guys. I almost never carry in town. In fact, I cannot remember the last time I carried a gun in town and it certainly was years ago. I carry, concealed, all the time when I go down to the ranch, not because I'm afraid of anything, but because a gun is a sure way to solve problems with nuisance or diseased animals like rabid coyotes. I keep it concealed for two reasons. First, the gun stays dry when my horse and I get caught in the rain. Second, not very often, but sometimes I run into hikers back in the mountains. About 30 years ago, I ran into a woman and her husband with my handgun exposed. I rode past them and all of a sudden the woman started screaming and yelling about my gun. I don't like screaming and yelling and I don't want to give any of these gutless bastards the opportunity to do it around me.

First of all, not all men, or women for that matter, are alike, share the same thought patterns and motivations, or are interchangeable.
Anyone who thinks all men, or all women, are alike is a fool.

Personally I took the class and got my CHL many years ago for two reasons.
one, I thought I might learn a few things in the class. I did.
two, I was aware that at the time, every time I packed up 2 or 3 pistols and went to the range I was in violation of the laws regarding the transportation of firearms. Now I can plunk my range bag full of not-disassembled guns and ammunition down in the seat next to me and be perfectly legal.

That's it. I live in a small, peaceful town and don't feel the need to carry unless I'm transporting some of my guns to the range, or I'm carrying a large amount of money, (like that happens any more. ) In another place under other circumstances-???.

On the other hand, listening to the preppers and their ilk (there's a band name for you!), it's not hard to see some of what she's talking about.

I wonder what she would say about my near instant accumulation of more and more firearms "military style" firearms and not having a carry permit or a desire to carry.

Now states as diverse as Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Pennsylvania

All those states are rural with one or two major metro areas. They don't seem that diverse to me. Not even to the meat and already can't take it seriously.

As for the rest, well I'm sure it plays a small part in some men's minds. But I'd say she's mostly wrong, and trying to use a broad brush to sell books.

She's making good points, but not necessarily points that apply to everyone or particularly males for that matter. But there's a particular type of right wing aging male her description fits exactly. I know more than a few, here in Michigan.

Some people are attracted to guns because it gives them some control in some areas of their lives. Economic factors are generally out of their hands, the technological future is scary if you don't understand it, and the pace of change is ever more rapid. Many people feel the life they knew is dissolving around them and they are powerless to counter. I'm just cynical enough to believe the Republican emphasis on God and Guns is simply Bread and Circuses for the plebes.

I actually do carry everywhere it's legal and practical. I've also had a permit for 25 years, dating back to the days before we all knew the middle class was hosed. So obviously in my case it has nothing to do with economic insecurity. And I really have no one to protect besides myself.

There are lots of reasons why I carry, some pretty sound and some pretty silly. On the frivolous level I CCW because I just really like guns. I like to shoot them, clean them, read about them, talk about them, etc. A permit extends my opportunity to interact with the objects of my affection. On a more practical level I view a gun like a fire extinguisher or seat belt; of little use in most circumstances but extremely valuable in situations where they're uniquely useful. Viewed in that light it doesn't really come down to statistics at all. Violent crime is relatively rare but then I've been in relatively few traffic accidents. What rational person would counsel against seat belts based on a low statistical likelihood of being in an accident? To me a gun is no different. If I need one and don't have one I'll probably never need it again.

I don't the think the article is bad but it feels like the author started with a pet idea and worked backwards from it to justify it.

I think she's on to something interesting, but she's attempting to use cultural analysis to strip politics from an inherently political movement. She uses the "emotional needs" framing and so obscures the actual politics and economics at play. The decline of manufacturing jobs didn't just happen (like the change of seasons), it was a political decision that reordered the economy and created a strong class divide. There is no rise in crime, after all, so the "personal defense" issue is mostly a canard. For my money, I see the rise of gun rights as a reaction to a representative government that can no longer address (or listen to) the problems of voters combined with the rise of the deep state.

Wait, somebody actually went to Detroit... on purpose?


I agree with Beto and Sikacz on this. The article is an oversimplification that seeks to attribute a multifaceted issue to a single cause - a stated cause which amounts to little more than the inane cliche of guns being a projection of phallic insecurity.

But clearly the growing number of Conceal Carry permits is entirely due to men wanting to provide... That's why the fastest growing demographic in CC -by far- is women! ... Wait, what?

The amount of women getting CC permits has skyrocketed since 2008, as much as 8x what existed previously in some areas, and overall the increase of women seeking CC permits more than doubles the increase of men.

Well, so much for that idea.


To cover other issues from the op-ed in rapid fire fashion:

- One sociologist isn't "sociologists," singular and plural are things that exist and sociology has long lost any cohesion.
- Chatting with people in Detroit isn't research.
- Personal impressions and speculation are not research.
- The desire to protect yourself and others isn't in itself insecurity.
- Other variables of gun ownership (like shooting stuff is fun) must be accounted for, you can't just pick one you like and name it the cause.

It's to be expected from a self-described sociologist I suppose, for decades sociology has been flailing desperately for relevance and struggling with the fact that making shit up isn't very scientific, but that's a whole other topic.

Sociologists are just impatient anthropologists.

Obviously the increase in women carrying concealed is further proof that men can't provide. If they could, women wouldn't feel the need to carry.

Dunce wrote:Obviously the increase in women carrying concealed is further proof that men can't provide. If they could, women wouldn't feel the need to carry.

Next she will determine that all women who carry have gender identification issues and are really in the the earlier stages of a gender reassignment program.

Related:
"America’s gun problem has everything to do with America’s masculinity problem"
http://qz.com/576152/americas-gun-probl ... y-problem/

And for many men today, it’s an identity in particular need of cementing. In this May 2015 op-ed for The Los Angeles Times, sociologist Jennifer Carlson argues that men are clinging to guns as a way to address a broad range of social insecurities. Author of a book on the social practice of gun-carrying in America, Carlson found that gun owners often characterized their fathers’ generation as an era when men had important roles to play as providers and breadwinners.

But men’s participation in the labor force has been declining since the 1970s. As The Economist’s cover story, “The Weaker Sex,” explained earlier in 2015, poorly educated men in rich societies aren’t coping well in the 21st century. Changes in the home and the labor force, especially the loss of manufacturing jobs, have created a class of disgruntled, financially insecure men. Meanwhile, women, who now earn more university degrees than men, are surging into the workforce.

This tracks with Carlson’s research as well. “As men doubt their ability to provide,” she argues, “their desire to protect becomes all the more important. They see carrying a gun as a masculine duty and the gun itself as a vehicle for a hardened kind of care-work.” Some envision scenarios where they intervene with their guns to save women and children.

So how does she explain the fact that more and more women are buying their own guns? Hmmm..? Just another "educated person" ignoring the intent of the 2A. She can KMA...

Actually, the writer does acknowledge that more women are buying guns, just it's still somewhat lopsided (3:1 or 4:1 she claims). But yeah, the rest of the story is more or less that it's a guy and machismo thing.