« Geek news: Dell brings back XP | Main | More gun ownership statistics »

April 22, 2007

Comments

The lower your IQ, the greater the chance you will need a gun because of the lousy neighborhood you are forced to live in.

Whoa boy. I think gun ownership may be a proxy for urbanization ; rural people own guns, city people don't. Jews are also heavily urbanized, BTW.

"guns or revolvers?" Eh?

The smartest gun owners don't tell anyone they own guns, both to protect their property against theft (a cache of guns is a prize target to most thieves, despite the self-evident risks involved) and to keep their weapon safe from seizure from a bureaucrat enforcing the latest law of the week. And urban owners in some cities don't tell anyone because totalitarian municipal governments have largely outlawed tools of self defense.

The lower your IQ, the greater the chance you will need a gun because of the lousy neighborhood you are forced to live in.

Bull. A lot of these low-IQ whites are probably redneck types that live in the Midwest or South. Furthermore, they probably don't live in big cities (due to stricter handgun laws), so crime is not the reason.

Furthermore, if crime was the reason, then you would expect blacks to be the most likely to own a gun since they live in the most crime-ridden neighborhoods.

The smartest gun owners don't tell anyone they own guns...

Conspiracy theories? I think the GSS is pretty accurate about this one, at least from experience.

If anything, the survey results underestimate gun ownership among the lower IQ and class categories. Compared to their "betters" people at those levels are almost certainly more likely to be legally unable to own guns due to criminal records. You'll therefore have more of them lying about gun ownership. Even if the GSS is completely anonymous not everyone's going to trust those promises. Especially people in the lower IQ/class categories.

Of course there's a strong geographic and social-class dimension to gun ownership, but outside of most East & West coast cities, owning a gun is completely unremarkable. Interesting how blacks are unlikely to be gun owners, but African-American culture has fostered an entire musical genre that now glorifies guns and wanton violence. Tune into 60 Minutes tonight to see the consequences when gun violence and dysfunctional inner-city pathology intersect. Don't hold your breathe waiting for Al Sharpton to opine.

It is a beautiful day here in the NY Metro area. What the hell are all of you people doing posting comments? Get out of the house and go buy a gun or something! You don't have to let on to the guy in the store that you have a high IQ. Just consider it "slumming" and seeing how an average American with an average IQ lives. Just don't take the Prius. I'm off to the range. I"ll fire off a few extra magazines for all of you urban, unarmed Jewish kids. JA, if I see you at the range, I won't rat you out, I promise.

More intelligent people are probably more likely to realize that things like wearing a seatbelt, not smoking, eating a healthy diet, living in a safe area, and avoiding needless fighting will make us safer by many orders of magnitude than owning a gun will.

Of course, there are cultural factors as well. Jews simply don't have a culture of guns. Not only was I never taken hunting, I can't think of anybody in my extended family or friends who have been hunting.

JA, if I see you at the range, I won't rat you out, I promise.

Actually, I've been thinking about going lately. It sounds like fun. :-)

Interesting how blacks are unlikely to be gun owners, but African-American culture has fostered an entire musical genre that now glorifies guns and wanton violence.

High felony conviction rates would prohibit most blacks from purchasing weaponry legally in many states. Also, blacks live in urban areas where gun licensing is nearly impossible. Plus, given the 20% of the black population that lives in poverty, guns are too expensive to purchase legally.

In other words, blacks cannot buy guns because they're either too poor or they're disenfranchised from purchasing one in the first place. Black men are essentially worshipping objects they can't have. I'd hazard a guess that the black men with guns are basically the those who live in rural areas or law enforcement and military personnel.

Interestingly, my grandfather did own a rifle, but he lived on a plantation in rural Haiti, and essentially needed it prevent poaching from the locals. He and my dad used it for plinking, but interestingly, my dad has shown very little interest in owning one. Oddly enough, like a number of other Caribbean families, we have a machete.

Jews simply don't have a culture of guns.

Which is ironic given that the IDF has created a military supply structure that gives it some of the best weaponry in the world...

This would support my theory that smarts and common sense are often inversely proportional.

Do you suppose the Jews' non-gun culture led to them getting slaughtered by the millions in the 1940's?

Nobody says it better than Penn Jillette:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

More intelligent people are probably more likely to realize that things like wearing a seatbelt, not smoking, eating a healthy diet, living in a safe area, and avoiding needless fighting will make us safer by many orders of magnitude than owning a gun will.

Among other things, they're more likely to have a realistic attitude concerning a gun's self-defense capabilities. Or, for that matter, of the likelihood of having to use a gun in self-defense in the first place. For instance, gun advocates often claim that having a gun is especially vital these days given the prevalence of "home invasion" robberies. People in the higher intelligence categories are more likely to be aware of something that the gun advocates don't say, namely that most victims of home invasion robberies are involved in the drug trade.
--

Interesting how blacks are unlikely to be gun owners, but African-American culture has fostered an entire musical genre that now glorifies guns and wanton violence.

But remember that many of the fans of the most violent hip-hop are white suburban teenagers, a fair number of whom may have guns in the house.
--


Something that may complicate the whole survey is the fact that guns last for decades. They're not like cars or consumber electronics, with short useful lives. Many of the guns in the survey respondents' houses may have been purchased long ago by their fathers or grandfathers and passed down as heirlooms.

Do you suppose the Jews' non-gun culture led to them getting slaughtered by the millions in the 1940's?

LOL! Even if the Jews had guns, that wouldn't have stopped them from getting slaughtered. The Germans walked right through the French and the Polish armys.

Owning a gun will not prevent the state from kicking your ass. See Waco if you need an example.

Do you suppose the Jews' non-gun culture led to them getting slaughtered by the millions in the 1940's?

No, gun culture wasn't relevant as Jews were not allowed to own guns in Germany after '38, if not earlier or, obviously, anywhere the Germans quickly conquered. There might have been a few more Warsaw-like uprisings if guns were more common among Jews, but I think the end result would have been the same. There simply weren't enough Jews to take on the Nazi army.

David's mentioning of the IDF is interesting, though. The Jews of Israel are of course heavily armed, with most (?) males belonging to the army or reserves and owning an Uzi submachine gun. I wonder if that will have an effect on Jewish culture outside of Israel within the next few generations.

There simply weren't enough Jews to take on the Nazi army.

Six million wasn't enough? The Nazis diverted precious military resources to killing Jews, and the Jews could have screwed up the Nazi machine royally had they been armed.

The Germans walked right through the French

In the case of the French, it didn't help that there were sympathizers who viewed the Nazis invading France to implement their own fascist state to turn France into the type of nation that they wanted and in turn, to achieve revenge against the supposed enemies of France, essentially, the Republicans, Communists, Jews, foreigners, and atheists. The French Resistance was in effect a Communist underground movement with a some Republicans involved.

Jewish people also tend to live in the sort of metropolitan places where people don't hunt or keep shotguns around.

All the people I know who hunt or shoot for sport are at least Fussellian middle class. But they mostly grew up in rural areas or at least red states. Even though they themselves are intelligent, those areas tend to have lower-IQ people, right?

Six million wasn't enough? The Nazis diverted precious military resources to killing Jews, and the Jews could have screwed up the Nazi machine royally had they been armed.

Like JA said, the Nazis disarmed/banned guns for the Jews in every place that they were or conquered. Thus, talking about "if they had guns" is pointless since the Nazi army was obviously powerful enough to disarm the Jews in the first place.

The real question isn't so much if the Jews had weaponry, but if the average European citizen in an urban area had a gun of some sort.

Thus, talking about "if they had guns" is pointless since the Nazi army was obviously powerful enough to disarm the Jews in the first place.

Even if everybody had a handgun, the problem is that the Nazis were better armed and trained with automatic machine guns and rifles, tanks, planes, and various other armoured vehicles.

According to Richard Overy's book Why the Allies Won, "By 1944 American and British forces were fully motorised, but the German army was still using one and a quarter million horses. When Hitler's massive invasion force stood poised on the Soviet frontier in June 1941, it deployed 3,350 tanks and 650,000 horses." I would suggest that a few million Jews armed with rifles could have made a huge dent in that army. The idea that it was a fully mechanized war machine is a myth.

This is another question for which the politically-correct answer will often differ from a truthful one, not to mention the rational gun owner's fear of attracting either burglars or jackbooted thugs.

Besides, the question is badly written. "Guns or revolvers" might come across as a question about handguns only, and many upper-class people have shotguns or rifles instead of handguns.

The "white elite" in this country all own guns (what do you think Dick Cheney used to shoot that lawyer in Texas, a poppyseed bialy?)

While I do believe blacks own guns less frequently than whites, I do not believe there is such a big gap in gun ownership between more and less intelligent whites, apart from Jews (though more Jewish women eschew guns than men).

It's just that smart whites are less likely to confess gun possession to the nice young GSS interviewer (whom they intelligently suspect of being in thrall to the left-wing professoriate and likely a government snitch).

Since the mainstream media constantly tells less intelligent people that gun ownership is bad (an untruth which requires constant repetition even to seem plausible, but one which suits the powers that be since it diminishes the masses' capacity to revolt), survey respondents are warned to lie about gun ownership, lest they expose themselves to the oppobrium of the propaganda-drinkers, no less dangerous for being moronic.

Why did they ask about keeping the gun at home? (When I had a rifle, I kept it at my gun club. Did they ask about that separately?)

Come on HS, just cross-correlate gun ownership with whatever GSS variable measures urbanization and save us all a lot of argument.

No, really, you have to correlate for city versus country before you can get anywhere with this.

Can you provide an average score (and percentile) for Wordsum scores for gun owners and nonowners?

No, really, you have to correlate for city versus country before you can get anywhere with this.

Why? It would still show that gun owners tend to have lower IQs (Unless you are claiming that whites who live in cities are smarter than whites who live outside of cities).

Actually, I might...aren't state universities notorious for drawing off the best rural students and keeping them in larger municipalities?

"I would suggest that a few million Jews armed with rifles could have made a huge dent in that army."

No doubt about that. A bunch of islamic assholes with AK's and mostly light weapons are making life stressful for my cousins in Afghanistan and Iraq. One Finnish sniper in the Winter War probably killed over 1,000 Soviet soldiers. Or take look at Lexington & Concord.

Aren't statistics supposed to start with a theory and test it by looking at the correlations? This whole process here, while fun, seems somewhat backwards... Anyway, to join in: One issue concerning differences in gun ownership - rural v. urban, black v. white is self reliance v. entitlement/specialization. People from rural areas tend to pride themselves on being able to take care of themselves - fix a car, hunt, defend self etc., where the urban culture tends to pride itself on entitlement - Just look at New Orleans after Katrina hit. While buying a gun may or may not be a good decision, it is a move taken to increase self reliance. My friends from the country all rebuild cars, fix stuff etc., while I remember one friend from New York who was proud at 29 that she hadn't yet learned to drive a car.

where the urban culture tends to pride itself on entitlement - Just look at New Orleans after Katrina hit. While buying a gun may or may not be a good decision, it is a move taken to increase self reliance. My friends from the country all rebuild cars, fix stuff etc., while I remember one friend from New York who was proud at 29 that she hadn't yet learned to drive a car.

You don't need one in NY, that's the problem. Probably a matter of pretending a weakness is a strength or a freely chosen lifestyle option, like rednecks who are proud of knowing nothing about the rest of the world or intellectual women bragging they know nothing about makeup and fashion. (You don't see nerds bragging about their lack of social skills so much, before anyone jumps in; they tend to stress irrelevancies like knowing that Han shoots first.)

Also, there are many different kinds of city people; a Park Avenue socialite is very different from her Harlemite neighbor a few blocks to the north. Cities can support a much larger and unequal class structure due to their larger populations. Middle-class city people don't pride themselves on entitlement, they pride themselves on their refinement, their ability to appreciate culture, etc, all of which make them superior to their country cousins who have twice the house for half the money.
(Upper-class people of course have houses in both places.) They're not totally wrong, either, as you are never going to build an opera house in a rural area.

In general, most people adopt value systems that make themselves feel good. Thus why nerds get especially upset when stupid people give them orders (a la Dilbert). I realize this now, of course, but it still stings; old habits die hard.

Look, i grew up in a very rural area there was no gas station or internet and we had a general store like you see in western movies.
rural folks do not have a lower IQ in fact many times they will out-test city kids because more times than not there mother is there to tutor them after school. we had a kid who got every question right on the SAT. Most of us people who live in rural areas own guns because we know that the police response time is not quick enough and there can be dangerous animals that attack your kids. Alot of country kids also know more about the environment than a city kids teacher because they spend the majority of there time in that environment and learn everything about living in it.

if you guys have any questions about the culture of the people who seem much simpler free free to ask i do have to say since these places are so isolated one area may be different from another.

ethan

The comments to this entry are closed.