The conservatives generally tend to operate on plane of greater fear as a motivator, what else can explain the difference? What are they so afraid of? Even allowing for how more conservative folks live in rural areas where hunting is the reason for owning firearms, the difference is too stark for that to be the sole explanation for the difference.
Americans Have Bought Over 100 Million Guns During Obama's Presidency - there are just over 300 million total.....how do you explain this into your narrative?
When it comes to gun ownership and rights, Democrats and Republicans cross the aisles to hold hands in one accord. As neighbors we have common ground and find sporting activities to enjoy together with or without guns (examples: fishing poles, community events). Things are actually down to earth and hospitable in the real world where I live.
I don't think it matters to anyone who has more guns around here. Maybe someone is jealous and envious but I wouldn't know about that.
I don't believe I had a narrative. I just had a question about why Republicans own twice as many guns as Democrats. Do you have a possible answer?
Otherwise, I can only guess at the numbers: replacements for old guns, fear of mass murderers with assault rifles, fear that gun laws might get stricter, a growing love of gun collections, etc.
I think your linked study, and a couple more links included in the comments on that study show that PrettyPanther's rural vs. urban theory is a likely answer.
The studies show that rural areas have a higher rate of gun ownership. I think I recall that studies, (and voting patterns), show rural America is also more conservative-minded than urban areas. Leading to a seemingly safe assumption that rural residents are more typically Republican than Democrat.
We could follow that rabbit hole through the various stereotypes of rural folks vs. city folks and probably end up with several more comparisons that explain the Republican lead in gun ownership, but following your link's, (and those others), data, it appears to me that the most simple answer, (although less partisan or controversial), is the geographical demographics. Here is another part of a Pew study that deals with the ownership data; Section 3: Gun Ownership Trends and Demographics
Why do Republicans own twice as many guns? Studies show that Democrats are twice as violent as Republicans.
That was kind of a 'stupid question, stupid answer' type of thing after reading Credence and Pretty Panther's responses. I own about 5 guns. I don't know how many my husband owns. More than I do, I'm sure And, I tend to vote Republican. I wouldn't characterize myself as fearful of anyone, a hunter or afraid of guns being banned.
I am not someone to be feared. I am a gun owner. DON'T MAKE ME USE IT!! Oh, did I just type that? Sorry, sometimes the voices in my head get the best of me.
uh... you are a nice lady... I didn't really mean those things I said... that's not my real address. I moved.
But a serious question... are you a rural or suburban dweller?
If you are not fearful or a hunter, why do you own that many guns? I'm not judging, just curious.
Why not? I inherited a couple. I purchased a couple from others because it was a good deal and they needed cash. As a city guy, don't freak on that one. Hunting rifles change hand seasonally. One I did buy to hunt with. Didn't enjoy it much so don't use it.
Since we don't view guns the way you appear to it isn't considered strange to own one but it is considered strange for someone to create a mountain out of a molehill in order to attempt to look down on others for simple legal activity, which is where several replies on this thread seem to be going.
I don't have a problem with gun ownership. I have a problem with crazy people buying AR-15s and murdering dozens of others on a whim.
Do you believe in limits on guns? Should children, convicted felons and mentally unstable people be allowed to get access to assault rifles and other guns?
If you say no, we may have more in common than you think.
I don't think mentally unstable people or children should have access to guns. Felons? I don't know. I suppose it would depend on the crime. If it was a non violent crime I don't know how I would feel about them subsequently owning a fire arm.
Whose opinion or certification of mental instability is required before a person can legally be restricted from obtaining a firearm?
We can prohibit minors with an ID, but many gun rights advocates resist having to providing any evidence of their identity and such.
Felons- perhaps as condition of parole, temporarily, commensurate with nature of their crimes.
Somethings to think about on felons being allowed to have guns. When a felon is accepted into the armed forces they are allowed military issued weapons and ammo. When released from service, these felons who are trained in combat are not allowed to touch guns, let alone be anywhere near guns by law, it is a federal offense that is punishable by federal imprisonment.
I would personally trust veterans who are felons with guns who are no longer engaging in criminal activities, if I needed to.
If felons have guns, it is illegally, and they are likely engaged in other criminal behaviors. Laws that are on the books are not being enforced to take their guns or them off the streets. Its an ObamaNation.
I get their point at the end of a gun barrel.
I"ve had gun debates on line where people actually threaten to have me arrested or worst killed. By then it ends my discussion and their madness.
Republicans have been repeatedly shown to be more fearful of the world in general and outsiders in particular, so perhaps that is a contributing factor to them owning more guns. Rural areas, where hunting is more popular, tend to be more conservative/Republican, so maybe that is another factor. I also believe gun sales spiked when Obama was elected president, perhaps due to an unfounded fear that he wanted to ban guns, perhaps due to fear of a liberal presidency.
These are my speculative theories.
PrettyPanther and Credence2,
I think your fear-factor comments are way off-base, and can be tied more to your political leanings than valid data. I will try to be very polite so as not to incur another posting ban. (I hope you can imagine my surprise to discover yesterday that I was banned for 24 hrs. Guess I need to work on my empathy)
Anyway, In reading the survey, and a couple more research links that were buried in the comments section, it looks to me like PrettyPanther's "rural" theory hits closest to the mark.
A couple points did stick out;
Only 51% of gun owners claimed to be or lean Republican. Which of course, to your mind, should prompt the question of what the other 49% are afraid of?
Contrary to one article comment; "... most guns are owned by poor, uneducated white people", gun ownership is highest, (40+%), in the $40k - $150k income range, and only 22% of gun owners have a High School, or less, education.
But I think one of the most telling numbers was the reason for owning a gun; In 1999 only 26% said it was for protection... in 2013 that number jumped to 48%. Hmm...
Also, specifically to Credence2's doubt of the "rural" theory, the trend appears that it is the highest population density states that have the lowest gun ownership rates. Only 28% of Urban, (ahem..*Democrat*, and not much hunting), households have guns, while 59% of rural households do.
Now, GA, temper, temper...
Swimming in a sea of crimson and bearing it is the challenge I have not to blow my stack.
I lot of the information I acquired about conservative motivations come from egg-head studies. Everybody is different, the thought of owning a weapon has not occurred to me. I have made a point of making residence in places where I never needed one. But, the brief moment in LoDo, Denver's lower downtown where I once lived with a rash of burglaries that were common, committed by a bad teen element. I almost bought a gun, 'a small gun' mind you. I always spent the time contemplating the decision, wondering what I would do if I got the drop on a thief in the act, or he gets the drop on me? Do I do the Clint Eastwood thing 'make my day'? I have more than natural dislike of theives.
After being ripped off twice, both times without my knowledge, I decided to just move after a few promotions. I would not want the death of even one of those 'punk kids' on my conscience.
Was it worth it? As a lefty, I never had the desire to need to be armed. I would certainly get an education about those that feel the need to be armed beyond reasonable defense needs.
Not being facetious, just would like to know...
Hi GA, there are quite a few studies out there analyzing differences between conservative and liberal thinking, and it's become pretty well accepted that conservatives have a more tribal mentality. They are quicker to see outsiders as a threat, and more likely to support aggression to protect their interests. Liberals have some negative tendencies as well. They are not as happy as conservatives, probably due to their tendency to see gray where conservatives see black & white. I know you think this is a liberal bias, and I couldn't tell you for certain it isn't, as I have not personally subjected each of these studies to an analysis to determine if per-conceived biases resulted in certain conclusions. I am merely relaying the info.
Now, on a personal note, I grew up in a rural area of Oregon, then lived in urban areas of Oregon, so I am familiar with both conservative and liberal ideas and thought processes. Even so, when I moved to the Ozarks of Missouri in 2010, I was shocked at the level of fear and distrust among so many people in the very conservative area where I lived. Fear of the homosexual agenda, fear of the government seizing guns, fear of socialists, fear of atheists, fear of pretty much anything that wasn't perceived as part of their tribe. Almost weekly I overheard someone talking, or ran into someone who spoke directly to myself or my husband, about how it was important to stockpile guns, canned goods and water to be prepared for the end times, or when the government declared martial law, or when the socialists came to seize your property. I am not kidding. Many of these people were leaders in the small community in which I worked. Once, when the Governor (a Democrat) came to use the facility where I worked to make an announcement of granting of funds for economic development, a member of our Board threw a fit, because he said we were participating in a government takeover by accepting these funds. A member of our Board!
So, you see, it's hard for me to believe there is no merit to these studies, no merit to the idea that so many conservatives purchased guns when Obama was elected, because they were fearful.
This is all my opinion, backed up by a few actual studies. I'm not saying I'm certain I am right, but I am saying I bet I am right. :-)
That Ozark community you spoke of seems to be quite a few notches away from what I would consider "typical" conservatives. Sounds like they might be more like cousins to some of the Appalachian snake handling communities than brothers or sisters of the Conservative family. Preppers and Doomsday folks, (and the anti-government anarchists), are not part of what I believe the Conservative philosophy is.
The Extreme and Fundamentalists Right, (as I would see your Ozark folks), taint normal Conservatives the same way the Socialists and Anti-capitalism folks taint the Progressive Left.
ps. I suspect that your "I am not kidding" preface shows that you don't think your Ozark folks were typical either.
This is a stupid question and does absolutely NOTHING positive , All it does is to divisively contribute to the ideological differences in America . And so what if it were true ? I could then surmise that liberals are weaker in personal constitution ? Are afraid of guns , Are biased to our original civil liberties ? Oh yea .....sorry , That one is true !
Are you addressing me, horse? Speak up, Man!!
In my experience, the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. But, is that concept a bit over your head?
Well you didn't ask the O.P......, What has liberal America resorted to in asking the stupidest questions , even if conservatives owned "twice as many .....blah blah ".....what difference does that make ? It's only being asked to trigger controversy . Lets ask , are liberals really the only ones to drive Volvo SUV's with rainbow bumper stickers ? Or are they the only ones to vote for higher taxes ? How about , are more liberals on welfare than anyone else ?How about this one , Do liberals seem more offended by having to work for a living ? Hey I know ,...... There is far more over your head than mine if you're a liberal ?
Since there are data that shows there are more valid geographical reasons for the difference than the implied one by the question posers, thus disproving their implications, you should welcome the question. I did.
Someone who believes in reasonable laws about gun control isn't automatically a liberal.
Com'on Cred, you know there are a lot of stupid questions that would better be left unasked.
Not in the line of reasoning that horse is talking about. It is not a 'stupid question' to ask why conservatives are so askew in their reasoning? Eggheads have been asking this question for years.
One man's stupid question is another's sage inquiry, so who says which is which?
So, you know that my sage inquiry was not a 'stupid question' so why do you entertain this guy?
These are the types of bs comments I hate to run across. Eggheads, as you put it, have a general tendency to start with an assumption and then manipulate data to prove themselves right; allowing non eggheads to feel validated in their assumptions. Which is why anyone with an opinion on anything can, if they search the net hard enough, find a study conducted by an egghead to back up their opinion.
It doesn't make that opinion right. It simply makes it difficult to have a conversation when the other party begins from a position of bias.
I am prepared to answer the same questions of others regarding people who wonder about the reasoning of liberals? I just know Eggheads as synonomous with intellectuals and professorial types. That is the dictionary's definition, I don't assume anything beyond that. So, your assessment is wrong. Yet, I hear so many on the right deny climate change when the bulk of scientists say it is so. One opinion is not appropriate, but when one become a chorus, we should pay attention. (Just an example)
I am not afraid the ask the questions and pursue serious inquiry. Why would I as a left leaner not have any desire to own a semiauto when so many see this as important. I am not saying anything about the right to own, just why?
LOL. I wasn't saying you were redefining the word egghead. I wasn't implying that the use of the word was wrong. I was saying that your faith in simple studies, designed to answer one particular question in regards to human behavior, is driven by a need to prove that a particular assumption you hold is correct.
The problem with the question posed is that your assumptions as to the item are so far removed from the average gun owner's assumptions that there is no point in discussing it with you. If we took every thing in our lives which could potentially cause harm to ourselves, or others, away from each individual what would we have left? Nothing. Everything can be dangerous. A semi automatic is simply a thing. Until the wrong person picks it up with an intent to use it in an unlawful manner. The question we should be frantically discussing is what causes the individual to use it in these ways. Not why a piece of equipment that has been around for all of our life times and the life times of our parents is suddenly a very very dangerous thing to innocent civilians on almost a monthly basis.
I am not against a ban on semi automatic weapons but I can tell you this. Until we discuss and address the root causes for this violence semi automatics, if banned, will be replaced with other things to allow the carnage to continue. It is not the right causing the carnage. I don't think it is the left either, so I won't be starting a stupid thread to discuss some asinine topic to imply that the left is somehow responsible.
There is the average gun owner, but there is a highly vocal and stubborn faction that prevents any type of dialogue or action on the problem of guns getting into the hands of terrorists and the mentally ill.
We own guns, too, and we know how to use them, but we also recognize that we don't need a rapid fire killing machine. We have no use for it and cannot understand why any citizen would oppose making sure that those who want to purchase and use a rapid fire killing machine are, at the very least, investigated if they are on a terrorist watch list.
If any of the guns you own are semi-automatic, then you too are a rapid-fire killing machine owner.
Since I am not the gun expert, I checked with my husband to be sure. We don't own any rapid fire killing machines, although my husband did at one time.
Sure , but the only thing truly "rapid fire " is the liberal anti-gun, blind reaction to anything ! Instead of holding your own "out of control "political ruling party in check !
Well now, isn't that a determination of perspective that conservative's reasoning is "askew"? Wouldn't it be liberal "eggheads" that ask that question? Wouldn't conservative "eggheads" be asking why liberals are so blind to the reality of everyday life? Like the reality that there is no such thing as "free"? Someone somewhere will be picking up the cost.
As for "entertaining" ahorseback... that sounds like another "perspective" question.
Actually, the guestion goes right to the heart of why this country has so many divisions, including ownership of assault rifles.
I work online for a living. I have seen MANY POSTINGS by right-wing extremists who favored a civil war if necessary to remove Obama from office.
Extremist gun owners like the Virginia Civilian Defense League have made gun ownership into a "don't mess with us or we will mess with you" issue.
And because most of them are Republican, the GOP stops any laws such as the assault rifle ban that might have prevented all of these massacres.
Civil War? you have to be kidding, on what provocation?
I'm not kidding at all. They were talking about it based on the list you have heard before -- he is not American, he is a Muslim and part of a conspiracy, he was born in another country, he is going to take away our guns, etc.
https://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/22 … re-electe/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … an-people/
Just like it always has happened , When America needs soldiers , it will be these same Gun owner republicans who become soldiers , who then defend the free speech of moron liberals who don't have a gun ! So then , does that mean only republicans love their country ?????
Is this a typical liberal that doesn't know what a weapon is ?
I have never met a serious extreme liberal who believed in the authority of our military or police .
who believed in the nationalism or patriotism . Someone will have to prove to me that they even exist .
I'm kinda' glad this is all coming down to right against left , sad but maybe that's where it needs to go.
Liberals have so lock --stepped behind their fearless leader Obama as prove that they and he are one ideologically , to bad he isn't as patriotic as other Presidents have been .
Authority does not mean the abuse of same, do you know the difference?
We all believe in patriotism and nationalism, just to what extent.
I am glad too, but the outcome may not be something that you will like.
You wish that you could have your fearless leader, the chicken hawk Trump, in charge, but you are all in for a rude awakening.
No matter who they elected their will be a very rude awakening. The elistist and UN have many designs to depopulated the world. Which is very very stupid plan, as they have families too. Guns, GMO, water toxic, military glorification, dollar so on and so on. People are too afraid to be awake of what surrounded them continuously.
It's shows we are smarter than them if we get over our fears and die in small numbers rather than huge number.
I agree with elistist about over populating, just not this way,
Why are you so against Trump? He's going to enforce existing law - does that scare you? He's going to focus on rebuilding the economy and creating jobs - does that scare you? He's a white guy - is that the problem? I'm being serious here - the man isn't going to walk in and start launching nuclear warheads. We know the kind of person Hillary is; flawed on many levels. We know Trump has plenty of flaws, as did Bill Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and every other former President. He's going to bust up the "old boys" club called Washington - something we all benefit from. He's for putting the interests of America - all of us, not just special interest groups - first. Yet, you call him a chicken hawk - so tell me then my friend, when the rubber meets the road, what about him scares you so much that you'd vote for the likes of Hillary Clinton over him. He's unaccomplished in politics, but then again SO IS SHE. He's a loudmouth, but then again SO IS SHE. Whatever bad traits you can identify that Mr. Trump has, Hillary has them also. If he's such a big joke then why is he dominating the Republican party right now? Why is every big corporation against him? Because he's going to re-empower the citizenry instead of the chosen ones.
Seriously, is it just politics or is there a true fear about him being elected?
No matter if Trump is the real thing (which he is not) only a revolution of the people can change things. They are so dumb down it will take a near extinction to wake tbese people up.
Luckily we have some people in the wings awake and prepared to be an example rather than authority tyrants.
You are asking an honest question to which I will give a honest response. I never have nothing to hide.
I know what Trump says that he will do, but how does he do that, this is a representative democracy and he cannot do just as he likes.
Why should I worry about a white guy, all of Obama's predecessors were 'white guys'. I voted for many of them, so that is nothing new. It is not the 'white guy' but the attitude commensurate with being the President.
He is the kind of man that believes that he knows it all based on intuition. I don't trust a man that is not receptive to new information and not willing to acknowledge, that yes, there is a lot to learn. You go in with a pompous attitude, and your behind the 8 ball with me right away.
Sorry, RJ, I don't see him busting up anything, he is a part of the problem. Why does everybody seem to think that he is heads and shoulders above and incorruptable? He cannot even manage his own personal affairs without these kinds of questions coming up.
"All of our interests" may not be that, depending on your perspective and point of view.
I don't like politicians like Dan Quayle who talk tough, but never is prepared to walk the talk. I did not like his attacks on John McCain, as a veteran. While he convieniently buys his way out of obligation during Vietnam with his money. Many young men did not have that privilege. If you never had any skin in the game then your 'talk tough' stuff is just that, talk.
Of course, Hillary has more experience in politics, Secy of State, New York Senator, compared with Trump with NO political experience, with an attitude of "well I will just wing it".
HC, was not my first choice, I am with Bernie Sanders for some of the reasons that Ms. Clinton has been problematic. Inspite of issues of being corrupt both for candidates, Trump has the added problem for me of intolerance, and that is a show stopper.
Trump uses a commode that is 14K gold, do you really think that he is going to do things that would be adverse to his economic class standing? I doubt it.
Yes, there is fear of his candidacy and election and it is coming from all corners of the political spectrum.
Don't know who your calling pompous. Being artist and builder I just read the writing on the wall where most others fear to accept.
Did do some work for Trumpy, if the powers to be take him into a back room and show him a film of JFK getting shot in the head. Then ask Trump, Any question's? It will be impossible to walk his talk , for he will be dancing any tune they subscribe.
Thanks for being so forthcoming. I know he is perfect, but he's inspiring the "voice of the people" which has been silence for way too long - maybe you think he can't change "business as usual" but look at the media since he's be running, they are on their heels. Look at how he shredded the narratives of all the other candidates in his party. The people seem to want someone with no prior experience....just saying
Any one could win or lose the election, BUT I am not worried a bit about the second amendment! My guns or those of all law abiding citizens , If you had any sense at all you would place the blame where blame belongs instead of where it works for the liberal agenda , Listen ,liberals don't care about either the victims or the perpetration of terror by these Islamic meatheads .! All you care about is the manifestation of nanny -socialism for lack of a better agenda with your P.C. Professor Obama at the helm , If Islamic terror and it's growing presence in America was as important to you as P.C, you could and would at least be able to admit that it exists and so would your leaders!
In spite of all the statistics out there , the general lack of understanding or reasoning in the question like this one ,of why others do what they do are kind of lame , Is it laziness ?No , Is it political ! Or is it the constant need to express selfishness in passive aggressive support of self opinion ? You could easily Google a question today and have an answer in three seconds , BUT it has to become a written question or and other words , actually a comment ?
It falls back to the security blanket of the pointed finger ! That I know , Many love that button specifically and use it often ! This way you get to collectively point a finger at someone else for the blame to prove that your social guilt complex is safe from criticism ? Either that or your Google It button is actually broke ! Which is it ? Because it IS one or the other .
No, Ahorseback. It's about dangerous extremism and lax gun laws that allow mentally unstable people to easily buy assault rifles and murder dozens of people in a matter of minutes.
Regular hand guns kill far greater than these people that have these most dangerous of rifles.
If I don't get down to South America in time during the dollar collapse. I might have to hook up with a semi friend who is a dangerous physcopath that is gun crazy, Combined with my survival skill and living prepared designs in place. Then Hope I can drive down to Belize in my second survival post before nuke go off. Not going to like driving through ground zero America, that will be the hardest part.
Can't think of an example of a regular handgun killing 49 people and wounding 52 others in a matter of minutes.
Will not stop for any hitchhikers, robots or zombies. Only gas.
by movingout 7 years ago
As an Independent, I have voted for Republicans and Democrats. I feel we need a true two party system to help rebuild this great country. But instead, I see a divided Republican Party! We have the "true Conservative Republicans (which I have voted for in the past), being replaced by this...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
By the looks of events in the electoral college, President Obama is WAY ahead of Mitt Romney. Now, how are YOU going to celebrate President Obama's SECOND term?
by crankalicious 5 months ago
Hey, look, another right-wing conservative policy goes down in flames.What's amazing is that Utah is only the 19th state to ban such anti-science crap. Let's be clear, gay conversation therapy doesn't work and has never worked because you can't change somebody's God-given sexuality.But...
by Gina145 7 years ago
Do you believe owning a gun saves lives or can it cause more harm than good?Years ago I knew a man who was held up in his shop. Instead of giving in to the robbers' demands, he tried to get his gun and was shot dead.Recently a man and his son were held up in their home. The man succeeded in getting...
by nicomp really 10 years ago
Stay on message. The issue is the Federal Government co-opting 17% of the economy. The issue is personal freedoms eroding. Let them whine about a few vocal people at town hall meetings. Stay on message.
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Commonly, those people who call themselves conservative hold socialism and communism as being the end-state of liberalism. I would argue that there is nothing "liberal" about socialism and communism. Think about it, the fundamental engine behind both is the need for the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|