Humanizing Gun Nuts

[goju]

An anthropologist shoots down stereotypes about gun enthusiasts.

If there’s a gun in a scene, an old writer’s adage says, it had better go off. As that bit of advice suggests, there are few symbols more powerful than guns. They can represent liberation from oppression or serve as a weighty physical reminder of a lurking existential threat. No matter the association, the powerful emotional responses that guns elicit are largely responsible for the stagnant and vitriolic nature of the current gun control debate.


In Shooters, anthropologist Abigail Kohn argues that both sides of the debate have become so alienated from one another that they effectively form subcultures, and she studies them accordingly. Kohn calls Shooters an ethnography, an anthropological study conducted from within a culture to gain the “natives’ point of view.” Rather than studying gun enthusiasts though literature and statistics, or from behind a duck blind to ensure “objectivity,” Kohn spent time with enthusiasts, interviewing them, taking classes with them, and shooting with them.


Her research methods appear to be scrupulous. She confined her survey to a particular area (the San Francisco Bay area) rather than glossing the gun culture as a whole. She published her standard questionnaire as an appendix to the book, and the citations she offers to support her claims seem to come from both sides of the gun control debate. The result is a fascinating look into the world(s) of gun enthusiasm that puts real, human faces on a gun debate dominated by antiseptic statistics and abstract principles. After reading Shooters, you’ll wonder why no one has done such a study before.


The omission may stem from the typical attitude toward guns among academics, which Kohn addresses in her preface. From “public health” articles proposing gun control as a cure for the “epidemic” of gun violence to highly regarded sociologists who argue that gun research should be informed by “moral principles” rather than hard facts, she confesses her surprise at the ill-informed and often tendentious research conducted by academics. Kohn’s own research for Shooters, some of which appeared in this magazine (“Their Aim Is True,” May 2001), elicited predictable responses. One colleague said she was performing a “social service by researching ‘such disgusting people.’” Another said that unless Kohn acknowledged the “inherent pathology” of gun enthusiasm, she was disrespecting victims of gun violence.

http://www.reason.com/0502/cr.ed.humanizing.shtml


Interesting read, I recommend it for anyone interested in the gun debate. Let the fun begin...

[iverglas]

1. Abigail finds her niche

http://cfk.unc.edu/bios/board-members/abigail-kohn.html

Abigail Kohn got her A.B. from Harvard University in Folklore and Mythology ('91), a degree that introduced her to cultural anthropology and story-telling in cultural context. After a brief and ill-fated attempt to become a Hollywood casting director (she has the dubious distinction of assisting the casting director of 'Major League'), Abigail became interested in all things crime-related. ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/books/books-mamich100700.shtml

Interesting women such as Abigail Kohn take you on her journey from being an anti-gun, graduate anthropology student in search of a thesis topic ...

"As a practicing anthropologist, I had set out in search of gun crazies, but what I found were regular folks -- enthusiasts who relate to their guns in generally socially positive ways."

One might have expected a "practising anthropologist" to have been a little, um, more knowledgeable. Gee ... she wouldn't have been wanting to imply that her own ignorance was somehow representative of some other group, would she?

Some seem to think it is.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/02/inherent-pathology-of-gun-culture-or.html
-- after quoting the above:

Nice to know what some of them really think of us while they claim they only want to implement some "common-sense" regulations. And another example of people fearing what they don't understand - and why, if we're going to save our "gun culture" we need to be taking non-shooters out shooting.

Nicer still if that writer hadn't relied on Abigail's characterization of herself to state an unpleasant generalization about a whole lot of other people not present.

A teeny bit of balance is alluded to here:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article481.htm
Good old Garry Breitkreuz helpfully reproduces a Globe and Mail article from December 2004 otherwise available on-line only by subscription.

I mean, most of what I find about Kohn and her book on line comes from, um, gun nuts.

But the other book referred to in that article (see http://www.blownawaythebook.com/qanda for a book by the author, who seems to have taken a slightly less participant and more observer approach to her subject) kinda reminds us that people's reasons for doing things aren't always that the idea just came to them out of the blue and looked kinda good, or that their grandpappy did them, etc. etc.

Another key element of gun culture that's also lamentably little understood is the marketing and distribution of guns. Tom Diaz, a Democratic counsel to the Crime Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 1997, comes out swinging on the topic in his terrific Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America (New Press, 1999). According to Diaz, now a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a public policy institute working to reduce gun violence: "The fact is that the greater part of firearms violence in the United States does not stem from 'guns in the wrong hands' rather from the virtually unregulated dangerous consumer product." While he packs many assumptions into that sentence, this book's value lies in his nuanced, detailed and sophisticated explication of how guns are designed, marketed, promoted and sold.

Firearms owners are, after all, consumers of products sold for considerable profit. And ya'd think that an anthropologist studying people's behaviour would be interested in examining the effect of attempts to influence that behaviour. I dunno; did Kohn do this?

Perhaps they're not like consumers of Macdonalds hamburgers or Krispy Kreme doughnuts or $300 running shoes. Perhaps firearms owners aren't at all influenced by the efforts of corporate capitalists to sell them stuff. ... Or perhaps the hamburgers and doughnuts really are fine and nutricious food, and nobody really can walk without those $300 shoes ...

[sybylla]

2. I just poked my head in here to see what's up - and you hooked me

I'm not going to comment on the "anthropology" of gun ownership. For the most part, I'm really not interested in gungeon debates.

But I see at the end of your post remarks that suggest gun owners are the product of marketing. Sure, you would think this would be studied by anthropologists interested in the role of gun ownership in a society. I have to add, however, that gun owners are no more suceptable to marketing than anyone else and to imply differently without credible supporting evidence is wrong.

I have six guns in my home, only one of which I purchased in 1988. The rest were inherited or received as gifts. I know many more gun owners just like me. And I know one guy who buys guns and ammo all the time because they are cool, unique, antique or whatever - not because he needs them. He's neither nuts nor intent on rebellion. He just collects guns and enjoys a day at the shooting range. I'm not sure you could even equate him with the guy down the road who owns an Expedition, a million dollar country estate, a $50 hair cut and a seat cover for a wife. Collecting and compensating for a small penis are two different things.

As for a persuasive gun marketing campaign, I don't see it. The only place I've seen ads for guns is in my dad's hunting magazines. Now those mcdonalds and krispy kreme ads, they're all over. So I doubt an anthropologist will find much correlation between people who go to mcdonalds and people who own/buy guns.

But I could be wrong. I would be interested in seeing that data.

[iverglas]

3. gosh a'mighty

I have to add, however, that gun owners are no more suceptable to marketing than anyone else and to imply differently without credible supporting evidence is wrong.

And I do hope that you would not be expecting me to disagree with you.

Golly, I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I thought that to neglect to study the potential influence of marketing on firearms owners would be to imply that firearms owners are LESS susceptible to marketing than anyone else without credible supporting evidence ... and that, tsk, that would be wrong.

Hey, not that I'm discounting your purely anecdotal personal experience as "credible supporting evidence" if you are in fact suggesting this, eh?

Not that I'm quite sure what it means to say that someone "owns a seat cover for a wife", but that's okay, I don't think I want to.

As for a persuasive gun marketing campaign, I don't see it. The only place I've seen ads for guns is in my dad's hunting magazines. Now those mcdonalds and krispy kreme ads, they're all over.

"Marketing", of course, really doesn't just consist of paid commercial announcements, and it would have been disingenuous of me to say that it did. I mean, where would those $300 shoes and their vendors be without sports leagues to market them? And what did you really imagine that those sports leagues were for?

So I doubt an anthropologist will find much correlation between people who go to mcdonalds and people who own/buy guns.

Of course, "correlation" wasn't what I was suggesting.

But me, I'm just not willing to discount the multiple and pervasive cultural messages that are delivered to individuals, by people with an interest in getting 'em to do something, as quite so irrelevant to their behaviour as you might be.

[sybylla]

7. Wow

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today :wow:

I was seeking a little clarity in your remarks, Iverglas. It sounded to me like you were making a generalization and I have always thought of you as someone above generalizations. And, no, I don't expect you to take my anecdotal evidence as proof of anything except that a generalization assuming all gun owners are ga ga over guns regardless of marketing is wrong.

If you weren't trying to make a correlation between media hyping of McDonalds and Krispy Kreme and marketing of guns and gun ownership, then your remarks certainly did require some clarity.

I'm pleased to have provided assistance in this matter.

[iverglas]

8. object lessons for goju

in the search for straw-person arguments to demolish.

I have to add, however, that ... to imply <that gun owners are more suceptable to marketing than anyone else> without credible supporting evidence is wrong.

... a generalization assuming all gun owners are ga ga over guns regardless of marketing is wrong.

Neither of those statements refers to anything that anyone has said or done anywhere in this discussion. So why would anybody be wasting his/her time talking about them??

Google result number 1 will do fine.
http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/studyskills/as/as_cr_ar_ba.html

Straw person argument

The name of this form of argument derives from a military situation in which soldiers in besieged castles tried to trick their enemies by creating straw men to place on battlements. This provided false targets on which their enemy would waste their arrows, spears and so forth. If the trick worked, it enabled the real soldiers in the castle to gain an advantage.

Similarly, some people argue by creating a straw person of their opponent's position. This means that you represent your opponent's argument in such a way that it cannot withstand close scrutiny. You can then easily refute it, leaving your own argument standing unassailed.

The problem with 'straw person' arguments is that they rely on misrepresenting your opponents' views.

... or, of course, misunderstanding your opponents' views, eh? I mean, it's just so reasonable and civil to "understand" someone to have said something that no rational and decent person would have said ...

[sybylla]

9. A reading lesson for Iverglas

I was seeking a little clarity in your remarks, Iverglas. It sounded to me like you were making a generalization and I have always thought of you as someone above generalizations.

preceeded my remark, which you edited down from

And, no, I don't expect you to take my anecdotal evidence as proof of anything except that a generalization assuming all gun owners are ga ga over guns regardless of marketing is wrong.

I didn't say you made the generalization. I said it sounded like you were making one and I made my original remarks in an effort to seek clarity from you. Instead, I get attacked and my statements are misrepresented.

Who's positing a strawman here?

Considering I don't think of you as an opponent, it all seems a bit ironic. But it's okay to be paranoid if the whole world really is out to get you.

[iverglas]

12. sorry, still not getting it

I didn't say you made the generalization. I said it sounded like you were making one ...

So you do indeed say. It's still just quite beyond me what there is in what I said that sounded like any such thing. There was in fact nothing that sounded like any such thing.

Your assertion that "x" sounds like "y" just doesn't make it so, y'know.

I didn't say you made the generalization. I said it sounded like you were making one and I made my original remarks in an effort to seek clarity from you.

And again, it is still just quite beyond me what there was in what I said that needed any such "clarity". Since there was in fact nothing in what I said that sounded like what you said it sounded like, there was nothing that needed any such clarification.

Your assertion that "x" is unclear just doesn't make it so, y'know.


In fact, it's very common for statements that "x" sounds like "y", or "x" is unclear" (followed by some suggestion of what it might possibly have meant) to be - c'mon, you know it - defences to objections to straw-person arguments.

The sky is blue.
- Why are you saying that the sky is never pink?
I didn't say that. I looked at the sky, and said it is blue.
- Oh, well, sure. But it sounded like you were saying the sky is always blue.

So what is all this about violins on TV, Emily?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sybylla]

43. Jump on me all you want

From the looks of this thread, you could use all the friends you can get. And I used to count you as one. (check your inbox from a year ago) If you want to pretend I was jumping on you, go ahead.

Not everyone comes to the gungeon for a fight but apparently everyone gets one.

[MrSandman]

44. Stay and enjoy...

We don't always fight.:grouphug:

[sybylla]

46. What?, no bridge to sell me?

I imagine it will be much more fun in the gungeon without me.:hi:

[goju]

13. Well gee golly Iver

If I had made that statement you are referring to, you might be making some sense. But thats just not the case, is it? Maybe you need to get some new glasses, or something.

[iverglas]

15. and heck

If I had made that statement you are referring to, ...

If I had said that you did, you'd have yourself something other than a straw-person argument there.

[goju]

16. Why then, address the post to me?

Perhaps it was simply another misspelling of a name? Really, we have taken the trouble of making all these names available to you in black and white. Can you meet us half way, at least?

[iverglas]

19. ah, if only I had done that

I addressed my post to sybilla. Follow the dots, now.

I drew your attention to it in the header so that you would perhaps gain some insight into the concept of "straw-person argument", when you read the ones she had made.

Making any progress?

[goju]

26. Of course you did, Dolomite

How could I have missed the fact that you "addressed" your post to sybilla with the title being "object lessons for goju". Silly me, eh Pert?

[iverglas]

32. it's a funny thing

When I address someone, I tend to do it in the second person, rather than the third.

You know -- like "object lessons for you", if I'm offering object lessons for the person I am addressing ...

Now, you go back to the allegedly offending post, and at the top of it you'll see that clickable thing that says "reply to #__". And you click on it, and check it out.

When you see a CD on the shelf entitled, oh, "Beethoven for Babies", do you imagine that the words are addressed to babies ... or that someone is saying that babies wrote the music on the disk?

[goju]

35. All things considered

It would depend on who stocked the shelves, wouldnt it? I usually have no trouble at all navigating a music aisle, nor a discussion board. But every now and then, you just have to shake your head in wonderment....

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

24. What were you saying about rudeness?

:shrug:

Here it is...

"Rudeness is so out of style."

Indeed.

[skippythwndrdog]

25. It would seem that our friend's rudeness...

could be related to waking up on the wrong side of the bed.

[Squatch]

27. Don't you think that pointing out a person's style for waking

is, well, rude?

[skippythwndrdog]

28. It could be, perhaps I should have told her via PM instead.

Yes, I probably should have notified our friend personally.

[Squatch]

29. Do you know what's NOT rude?

"Live and let live."

[skippythwndrdog]

30. That would mean that gun control is rude, then.

Or rather, that safe storage laws are rude, as are any licensing requirements.

[iverglas]

33. or heck

"Discuss the topic of discussion and not the discussant", eh?

[Squatch]

51. Works for me.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

4. "I know many more gun owners just like me." I like you, with or

without guns.
:hi:

[goju]

5. Wowzers

One might have expected a "practising anthropologist" to have been a little, um, more knowledgeable. Gee ... she wouldn't have been wanting to imply that her own ignorance was somehow representative of some other group, would she?

Why would anyone expect a "practising anthropologist" to be any more knowledgeable about the gun culture than she would be about the purchasers of $300 running shoes? Unless, that is, she takes the time to study it? Perhaps some people are just endowed with certain knowledge that we commoners lack, one never knows.

She might have been wanting to imply one thing or another but, I'd better leave those magic spectacles in your charge.

Nicer still if that writer hadn't relied on Abigail's characterization of herself to state an unpleasant generalization about a whole lot of other people not present.

Even nicer still if you wouldnt rely on 2 (and counting) right wing sources to try to impugn a whole other group, eh?

I mean, most of what I find about Kohn and her book on line comes from, um, gun nuts.

And what might that mean, really? We might be led to believe that only gun nuts read her books. Conversely, we might think that only gun nuts comment on them, while others remain silent. Or, we might just conclude that one's research skills are not quite what he or she thought they were. Perplexing indeed.

Firearms owners are, after all, consumers of products sold for considerable profit. And ya'd think that an anthropologist studying people's behaviour would be interested in examining the effect of attempts to influence that behaviour. I dunno; did Kohn do this?

I dunno either, maybe you should contact her and ask her that question, since it seems to be a requisite on your to-do list for "practising anthropologists" who choose to study the gun culture. But maybe she just wasnt interested in studying the marketing effects of anything. Maybe she was interested in just studying why some people own, use, and enjoy firearms while others do not. Maybe she made the reasonable and safe presumption that people dont just go buy firearms like they would doughnuts.

Perhaps they're not like consumers of Macdonalds hamburgers or Krispy Kreme doughnuts or $300 running shoes. Perhaps firearms owners aren't at all influenced by the efforts of corporate capitalists to sell them stuff. ... Or perhaps the hamburgers and doughnuts really are fine and nutricious food, and nobody really can walk without those $300 shoes ...

Hmm, Im just trying to remember the last time I went out and bought a gun because of some exciting advertisement of some sort, or for some basic human requirement like hunger. Ya know, I just cant remember. Maybe you were trying to imply that we gun nuts buy firearms in the quantities or frequency of doughnuts? Surely not. Maybe you were trying to imply that we "consume" guns as we would clothing or food? Again, I would suspect not. Maybe you are honestly confused, or maybe you were trying to imply something for some reason that just isnt so, and would be absurdly irrelevant anyway? This little straw man falls under the WOWZERS category.

I wonder what your point is though. The "wisdom" of Tom Diaz aside, is she just a charlatan in search of support, and book sales, from an ever decreasing number of gun nuts? Is she a simpleton, lacking in academic or research skills? Im scratching my head on this one.

[iverglas]

6. well, lemme see

Hmm, Im just trying to remember the last time I went out and bought a gun because of some exciting advertisement of some sort, or for some basic human requirement like hunger.

The post in which I elaborated on the concept of "marketing", which apparently is unclear to some ... despite the fact that I had actually quoted an article that gave a hint, in my first post:

.. this book's value lies in his nuanced, detailed and sophisticated explication of how guns are designed, marketed, promoted and sold.

was posted 17 minutes before yours, but maybe you started to compose before seeing it. And really had no idea what the concept of "marketing" encompasses.

Maybe you were trying to imply that we gun nuts buy firearms in the quantities or frequency of doughnuts? Surely not.

But of course not. You may rementer that it is not *moi* who continually offers drug and alcohol prohibition as analogous to firearms control measures, after all. Apart from that, I don't know why it would even occur to you that I might have suggested such a thing, let alone to inquire about it. "There are no stupid questions" isn't actually a universal truth.

I mean, most of what I find about Kohn and her book on line comes from, um, gun nuts.
And what might that mean, really? We might be led to believe that only gun nuts read her books.

Well, y'know, you might. Me, I was just trying to find some actual critical comment on her book -- comment from a neutral, academic kind of source/perspective. And I hadn't managed to. I might wonder whether the kind of people who write comment from a neutral, academic kind of perspective didn't regard her book as worthy of comment, of course.

Conversely, we might think that only gun nuts comment on them, while others remain silent.

And I might think that if those others did remain silent, there might be reason for it:

While her sample group is tiny, only 37 ...

That sort of sample might make for a fun time while earning one's fellowship, but it might not be a really, really good basis for conclusions about anybody other than the sample group.

And actual scholars might just not regard that as scholarship worth commenting on.

Or, we might just conclude that one's research skills are not quite what he or she thought they were.

One might, if one had some evidence tending in that direction. Or if one didn't worry one's head about things like evidence.

Even nicer still if you wouldnt rely on 2 (and counting) right wing sources to try to impugn a whole other group, eh?

I dunno. Perhaps you imagined that the two right-wing sources I actually quoted were the only right-wing sources that I found by asking google for "abigal kohn". Or the only two (of a thousand or so search results) that I had read. Who knows?

Let alone the question of what "whole other group" I was supposedly impugning ...

This little straw man falls under the WOWZERS category.

Maybe if you had a clue what a straw-person argument actually was, this would make some sense.

The "wisdom" of Tom Diaz aside, is she just a charlatan in search of support, and book sales, from an ever decreasing number of gun nuts? Is she a simpleton, lacking in academic or research skills? Im scratching my head on this one.

Well, lemme see. She was doing quite well getting funding to pursue her academic goals, and academics tend to like to continue getting funding. And she has a known taste for the bright lights of the entertainment biz, but had previously failed in her search for the spotlight in Hollywood. And she -- just kinda randomly? -- chose California for her field work. And now she seems to be quite the darling of the talk-show circuit, not to mention having no shortage of funding. Need some help scratching your head?

[goju]

11. Adjust them specs

The post in which I elaborated on the concept of "marketing", which apparently is unclear to some ... despite the fact that I had actually quoted an article that gave a hint, in my first post:

.. this book's value lies in his nuanced, detailed and sophisticated explication of how guns are designed, marketed, promoted and sold.

was posted 17 minutes before yours, but maybe you started to compose before seeing it. And really had no idea what the concept of "marketing" encompasses.

And why, prey tell, would you be quoting Caitlin Kelly on Tom Diaz's book, when discussing a whole other book by Abigail Kohn, who was not researching any marketing of any kind? I mean, what relationship did you think you were exploring in that post, and what purpose did you think it would serve?

But of course not. You may rementer that it is not *moi* who continually offers drug and alcohol prohibition as analogous to firearms control measures, after all. Apart from that, I don't know why it would even occur to you that I might have suggested such a thing, let alone to inquire about it. "There are no stupid questions" isn't actually a universal truth.

Well this quote of yours might be an indication....
Perhaps they're not like consumers of Macdonalds hamburgers or Krispy Kreme doughnuts or $300 running shoes. Perhaps firearms owners aren't at all influenced by the efforts of corporate capitalists to sell them stuff. ... Or perhaps the hamburgers and doughnuts really are fine and nutricious food, and nobody really can walk without those $300 shoes ...

Hmm, one might just get the impression from that paragraph that you were trying to compare firearms purchases with Macdonalds hamburgers or Krispy Kreme doughnuts or $300 running shoes. But, you dont understand why I would suggest that that is what you said? :eyes:

Well, y'know, you might. Me, I was just trying to find some actual critical comment on her book -- comment from a neutral, academic kind of source/perspective. And I hadn't managed to. I might wonder whether the kind of people who write comment from a neutral, academic kind of perspective didn't regard her book as worthy of comment, of course.

Again, I must take note of your research skills, err, reading comprehension/attention. From the 4th paragraph in the original post:

The omission may stem from the typical attitude toward guns among academics, which Kohn addresses in her preface. From “public health” articles proposing gun control as a cure for the “epidemic” of gun violence to highly regarded sociologists who argue that gun research should be informed by “moral principles” rather than hard facts, she confesses her surprise at the ill-informed and often tendentious research conducted by academics. Kohn’s own research for Shooters, some of which appeared in this magazine (“Their Aim Is True,” May 2001), elicited predictable responses. One colleague said she was performing a “social service by researching ‘such disgusting people.’” Another said that unless Kohn acknowledged the “inherent pathology” of gun enthusiasm, she was disrespecting victims of gun violence.

Maybe you glossed over that part in the article, or maybe those academics werent academic enough for you? Or maybe, you honestly believe that some people are "neutral" in their "critical" comments? (contradicting terms aside) What exactly might you be looking for, again?

That sort of sample might make for a fun time while earning one's fellowship, but it might not be a really, really good basis for conclusions about anybody other than the sample group.

And actual scholars might just not regard that as scholarship worth commenting on.

Well, it would appear that is not the case, wouldnt it? And it would appear to be an adequate sample size not only for her doctoral degree, but also for book publication, wouldnt it? Who is it that awards PhD's, again?

I dunno. Perhaps you imagined that the two right-wing sources I actually quoted were the only right-wing sources that I found by asking google for "abigal kohn". Or the only two (of a thousand or so search results) that I had read. Who knows?

Maybe if you would cite a few more sources, we wouldnt be left wondering about your motives, would we? Maybe, just maybe, if you spelled Abigail Kohn correctly, your research might bear more fruit. Really, who knows?

Maybe if you had a clue what a straw-person argument actually was, this would make some sense.

Perhaps your trying to suggest that the author's lack of marketing research in this area is evidence of some academic shortcoming might be a clue.

Well, lemme see. She was doing quite well getting funding to pursue her academic goals, and academics tend to like to continue getting funding. And she has a known taste for the bright lights of the entertainment biz, but had previously failed in her search for the spotlight in Hollywood. And she -- just kinda randomly? -- chose California for her field work. And now she seems to be quite the darling of the talk-show circuit, not to mention having no shortage of funding. Need some help scratching your head?

Lets turn those magic specs around, shall we? She, like many others, has pursued a variety of interests beyond her academic career. You characterize one of those pursuits as a "known taste for the bright lights of the entertainment biz, but had previously failed in her search for the spotlight in Hollywood" Hmm, Im not scratchin my head as to where you are coming from at this point, I just wonder why you thought it would go unnoticed? Nevertheless, I fail to see how that information about her previous interests sheds any conclusive light on her academic integrity. Im sure you do though.

Darling of the talk show circuit.....? As opposed to Tom Diaz, or Sara Brady, is that what you mean? Shortage of funding you say...? Need you continue down this ugly path, really?

[iverglas]

18. ..........

I'm not entirely sure why we're citing and quoting "Reason" hereabouts in the first place, but as long as we're doing it ...
http://reason.com/0105/fe.ak.their.shtml

... I took lessons from instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, went to gun shows, and shot on ranges and in competitions. Most importantly, I interviewed 37 adult men and women who identified themselves as gun enthusiasts ("shooters" is their preferred term).

I spent the most time with a local posse of cowboy action shooters, and in the process became an active participant in their sport. Beyond dressing in period costumes and using old-style weapons, cowboy action shooters construct elaborate mock-ups of Old West towns using painted plywood and vivid imaginations. These cow towns are assembled and dismantled on local shooting ranges on the weekends, all for the purpose of the somewhat complicated shooting competitions sketched out at the start of this article. Some of the better-attended (and better-financed) shoots include makeshift dance halls and saloons. Shooters eat, drink, dance, hang out, and, most important, shoot. I enjoyed spending time with the cowboy action shooters. This part of my research constituted what anthropologists call "participant observation," and my observations and assessments composed my anthropological data.

Now, the current "Reason" article characterizes this as follows:

She confined her survey to a particular area (the San Francisco Bay area) rather than glossing the gun culture as a whole.

and that is indeed one way of characterizing it. I gotta wonder, of course; how many gun enthusiasts hereabouts are part of that particular niche of the "gun culture"?

I mean, if I were choosing an element of gun culture to go immerse myself in for a few weeks, I probably wouldn't choose inner-city Detroit either. Or the hunting crowd. But I might really not present the element that I did hang out with as representative of anything or anybody else. And of course (read on) I'm not claiming that Kohn necessarily did.

Now, that appeared in the May 2001 edition. I look in June 2001 for letters in response. None there (but there sure is a lot of other crap to wade through.) So I try July 2001. ... Nope, just a bit of applause for some other anti-firearms control type article ... and David Horowitz with his nose out of joint. August/September ... nope again.

So hmm. When the author of the current article says, and you quote:

Kohn’s own research for Shooters, some of which appeared in this magazine (“Their Aim Is True,” May 2001), elicited predictable responses. One colleague said she was performing a “social service by researching ‘such disgusting people.’” Another said that unless Kohn acknowledged the “inherent pathology” of gun enthusiasm, she was disrespecting victims of gun violence.

... I guess that I'm to assume that the author is faithfully and accurately representing scholarly response to her writing, and not by any means cherry-picking or quoting out of context or anything like that. And I can take that short passage as all I need to know about the matter.

Maybe you glossed over that part in the article, or maybe those academics werent academic enough for you?

I give up. Since they weren't even named, how the fuck would I know how "academic" they are? Are we really holding up Reason Magazine as a paragon of unbiased reportage?

Well, it would appear that is not the case, wouldnt it? And it would appear to be an adequate sample size not only for her doctoral degree, but also for book publication, wouldnt it?

Well, these are, of course, two quite different things.

Theses and dissertations are what they are: studies of what they are studying. Unless they themselves present some reason for doing so, there really just isn't any reason to think that their conclusions can be generalized to anything or anyone else at all.

And the criteria for book publishing ... well hmm. Do you suppose that the potential profit to the author and publisher might have anything at all to do with that?

Maybe, just maybe, if you spelled Abigail Kohn correctly, ...

Well, I wasn't going to comment on your prEying me to tell, or your saying that Perhaps <my> trying (does no one know the difference between your and you are at all these days?) -- especially since I do seem to have managed to type You may rementer myself -- but now that you mention it.

Mine, of course, were typgraphical (haha, eponymy, anyone? thank goodness for proofreading) typographical errors. And given that I had spelled "Abigail" correctly every other time I'd used the word in this thread, perhaps you had some reason for suggesting that I did not do so when I did the search. Or how in heaven's name I managed to find nearly 1000 results, as I said I did, where others had apparently made the same error.

Finished now?

Hmm, Im not scratchin my head as to where you are coming from at this point, I just wonder why you thought it would go unnoticed?

Well, I'm sure scratching mine. Because I don't have a clue what you're on about.

Nevertheless, I fail to see how that information about her previous interests sheds any conclusive light on her academic integrity. Im sure you do though.

Well, perhaps if I had said that her previous interests did shed any light on her academic integrity, I'd be able to come up with a reason for you. I didn't.

Subject to the one caveat I have stated -- I don't know whether she investigated the entire spectrum of cultural and commercial influences on the people she interviewed in an attempt to determine why they have the interests they have, and I'm not going to buy the book to find out -- I don't see too much problem with her scholarship.

She studied 37 people, and wrote about those 37 people and her broader experiences in the context in which she found them, and had a damned fine time while she was doing it. She wasn't conducting experiments in curing cancer, after all. She's an anthropologist, and they do indeed do some wild and wooly things at times, but their efforts are hardly matters of life and death, so there's no reason for anybody to particularly care that their methods may be a little less than scientifically rigorous.


No, my concern is much less with Kohn and her work than with all the people who are using her and it for their own purposes, and specifically for purposes that, it seems to me, they really aren't up to.

[iverglas]

21. erratum

My back button had failed me, and it seems I was looking for responses to Kohn's original article in the June, July and August 1999 editions of Reason rather than the 2001 editions.

http://reason.com/0108/letters.shtml

There we do have responses to Kohn's article.

And there, along with the three laudatory letters, we have one more skeptical:

"Their Aim Is True" discusses a segment of gun enthusiasts who are perfectly good citizens. But what of the irresponsible segment, consisting of thieves, kids, and others who feel that guns give them power and control over everyone else? What of the mentally ill who kill without social consciousness?

Handguns have no place in a civilized society. Rifles and shotguns can be justified for pleasure and hunting, but handguns only have one purpose -- to kill people -- and for that reason should be banned or at least regulated. The government through the Second Amendment should not be sanctifying murder.

Unfortunately, I am no more enlightened as to who those other people are --

One colleague said she was performing a “social service by researching ‘such disgusting people.’” Another said that unless Kohn acknowledged the “inherent pathology” of gun enthusiasm, she was disrespecting victims of gun violence.

... let alone how accurately and fairly their comments were represented by the writer in Reason Magazine.

[goju]

37. uhhhhhhh

Im not sure why you bothered to post this, er correction, other than to remind us that computers can indeed be very, very tricky to operate. Maybe you were just sharing the reader responses that have some significance to someone, somewhere? Was there some point in mentioning that once again you had failed in your exhaustive research efforts to substantiate the credentials of the "colleagues" in question?

[iverglas]

38. sheesh

You mean that if you had happened to figure out that when I said:

Now, that appeared in the May 2001 edition. I look in June 2001 for letters in response. None there (but there sure is a lot of other crap to wade through.) So I try July 2001. ... Nope, just a bit of applause for some other anti-firearms control type article ... and David Horowitz with his nose out of joint. August/September ... nope again.

it wasn't, well, true, you would have assumed that I had made an innocent mistake, and not claimed to have assumed that I had intentionally looked in the wrong place for something that might have substantiated what that Reason Magazine guy said or provided me with some actual critical comment, and not claimed to have assumed that since I was obviously too stupid to be able to distinguish between 1999 and 2001 and shouldn't be allowed out in polite company?

"abigal kohn" ... if only I'd thought to correct the typo before you spotted it, you could have berated me for correcting it instead of berating me for making it, eh?

1999 instead of 2001 ... if I had corrected my mistake without bothering to mention that I was dealing with a web page that, when you go "back" to it, returns you to some random spot on the page and not the spot you were at when you left it, I just know you wouldn't have had any comment at all. Right?

[goju]

40. Perhaps

Or perhaps you might not regail us with your bloviated tales of rudimentary research abilities or technical malfeasance in the first place. Its not usually wise to question another's ability in technical matters if you are yourself unable to operate a personal computer at least to the extent of "copy and paste".

Of course, all this might just be a dishonest attempt at covering ones arse too. One never knows.

[iverglas]

42. damn thing is

... if you are yourself unable to operate a personal computer at least to the extent of "copy and paste".

I have yet to figure out what I was supposed to be copying and pasting.

I really don't type so very slowly, or spell so very badly, that the effort of typing "abigail kohn", instead of copying and pasting it from somewhere where I or someone else had already typed it, is likely to wear me out, or tax my faculties. When you want to use the word guns in a post, do you normally go copy it from someplace and paste it into your post? What the fuck are you on about?

Heck, if you actually did do that, of course, you might not be saying things like regail us. "Regale" ... rhymes with "Abigail" ... so must be spelled the same, eh?

If I may paraphrase you:

Its not usually wise to question another's ability to spell if you are yourself unable to type simple 6-letter words without getting four of 'em wrong.

Of course, I wasn't questioning your "ability in technical matters" beyond what was necessary in a reasonable attempt to figure out what the fuck you were on about ... whereas you have been making rather a point of questioning my spelling ...

[goju]

34. """"""""""""

I'm not entirely sure why we're citing and quoting "Reason" hereabouts in the first place, but as long as we're doing it ...

Because that's where I found this article and I thought it might be enlightening, or at least relevant, to those on the other side of gun control debate. Any further questions?

... I guess that I'm to assume that the author is faithfully and accurately representing scholarly response to her writing, and not by any means cherry-picking or quoting out of context or anything like that. And I can take that short passage as all I need to know about the matter.

Inasmuch as you are faithfully and accurately representing a scholarly approach to debate and the good faith arguments presented by gun enthusiasts, yes...you can.

I give up. Since they weren't even named, how the fuck would I know how "academic" they are?

Well, if it were me, I would consider the word used to refer to those individuals, namely "colleagues". But you would surely find that usage suspect, for one reason or another. Nevertheless, if you use that same suspicious nature in this case that you used when inferring that Abigail Kohn is either a charlatan or a simpleton, and just having a "taste for the bright lights of the entertainment biz, but had previously failed in her search for the spotlight in Hollywood", and not at all a serious scholar, Im sure you will find yourself as perplexed as me by your post.

Are we really holding up Reason Magazine as a paragon of unbiased reportage?

Are you really suggesting that any source is unbiased? I dare not ask for an example of a "paragon of unbiased reportage" yet, but maybe you can point out how Reason is not up to your standard?

Theses and dissertations are what they are: studies of what they are studying. Unless they themselves present some reason for doing so, there really just isn't any reason to think that their conclusions can be generalized to anything or anyone else at all.

What generalizations or conclusions did you glean from her writings? Maybe I need some of those canadian specs cuz I just cant mind read like others.

Well, I wasn't going to comment on your prEying me to tell, or your saying that Perhaps <my> trying (does no one know the difference between your and you are at all these days?) -- especially since I do seem to have managed to type You may rementer myself -- but now that you mention it.

Mine, of course, were typgraphical (haha, eponymy, anyone? thank goodness for proofreading) typographical errors. And given that I had spelled "Abigail" correctly every other time I'd used the word in this thread, perhaps you had some reason for suggesting that I did not do so when I did the search. Or how in heaven's name I managed to find nearly 1000 results, as I said I did, where others had apparently made the same error.

Finished now?

Oh, Im glad to see you are following the herd mentality in your research approach. Dog knows that a mistake repeated is just, well, twice as fruitful. And the fact that you bothered to put the original misspelling in quotes, indicating you took some time on it, speaks volumes, dont it?

Well, I'm sure scratching mine. Because I don't have a clue what you're on about

Hint, dont try to mischaracterize a person, or malign someone's work, simply because you disagree with their findings. Trying too hard, is usually indicative of some sort of motive.

Well, perhaps if I had said that her previous interests did shed any light on her academic integrity, I'd be able to come up with a reason for you. I didn't.

No, of course not. You wouldnt say or imply any such thing.
Well, lemme see. She was doing quite well getting funding to pursue her academic goals, and academics tend to like to continue getting funding. And she has a known taste for the bright lights of the entertainment biz, but had previously failed in her search for the spotlight in Hollywood. And she -- just kinda randomly? -- chose California for her field work. And now she seems to be quite the darling of the talk-show circuit, not to mention having no shortage of funding. Need some help scratching your head?

<shaking head>Is the sky blue, in your world?

No, my concern is much less with Kohn and her work than with all the people who are using her and it for their own purposes, and specifically for purposes that, it seems to me, they really aren't up to.

What purposes are you assuming now? And, why might they not be up to, whatever standard you claim has merit?

[iverglas]

36. lordy lordy

In no particular order ...

And the fact that you bothered to put the original misspelling in quotes, indicating you took some time on it, speaks volumes, dont it?

Perhaps you actually don't know how to do Boolean searches.

What I put in my post was this -- the italics were in the original:

"abigal kohn"

See how those quotation marks are inside the italicization? The italics themselves indicated that I was quoting what I had searched for. The quotation marks were part of the search terms. That way, you see, I didn't end up with sites on which there was an abigail and a kohn who weren't related to each other ... or were.

And damned if I didn't inadvertently misquote what I searched for, by mistyping the first name. Somebody cut off my fingers with a dull knife, okay?


I dare not ask for an example of a "paragon of unbiased reportage" yet, but maybe you can point out how Reason is not up to your standard?

Hahahahahaha! Good one. Now, remind us what the name of this site is?

I give up. Since they weren't even named, how the fuck would I know how "academic" they are?
Well, if it were me, I would consider the word used to refer to those individuals, namely "colleagues".

Ah yes. And academics never ever have personal opinions, or speak off the cuff, or drink a bit too much. Dreadfully sorry, but the comments you want to characterize as academic comment, really, just aren't. They really just have nothing to do with what I did say I was looking for:

some actual critical comment on her book -- comment from a neutral, academic kind of source/perspective.

The mere fact that someone who said something is an academic by occupation really just doesn't make what s/he said "academic". Hell, if that were the case, everything I said during a big chunk of the last century would have been "legal".

Oh, Im glad to see you are following the herd mentality in your research approach. Dog knows that a mistake repeated is just, well, twice as fruitful.

What in sam hill are you on about? Are you suggesting that you actually think that when I said:

... how in heaven's name I managed to find nearly 1000 results, as I said I did, where others had apparently made the same error.

... I was actually saying that I had found 1000 websites where Kohn's name was misspelled ... and not being so obviously sarcastic that I'd be embarrassed to admit I thought otherwise, myself?

What purposes are you assuming now?

Gee. I dunno. What was your purpose in posting this here?

Surely not to advance the notion that a student's participant-observer study of 37 individuals who like to play at cowboys and Indians tells us something we really need to know.

Hmm, I wonder. Did you know that her study was a study of 37 individuals? I know the article you posted didn't tell you that, but it sure wasn't hard to find it out.

And, why might they not be up to, whatever standard you claim has merit?

Anyhow, I tell ya what. Let's just agree that Kohn was an anthropology graduate student when she wrote the thing. That says about all I need to know, in case you haven't gathered.

[goju]

39. Amazing what one can "gather"

In no particular order ...

Nor in any particular sense that one can recognize as, sensible.

Perhaps you actually don't know how to do Boolean searches.

Perhaps arrogance is actually the seed of ignorance after all. Since I started my online hobbies with WAIS, I dont think Im lacking much in the way of search skills.

And damned if I didn't inadvertently misquote what I searched for, by mistyping the first name. Somebody cut off my fingers with a dull knife, okay?

Misquoted, after mistyping...is that the correct order? Tell me again, oh paragon of research ability, what skills I lack.

Ah yes. And academics never ever have personal opinions, or speak off the cuff, or drink a bit too much. Dreadfully sorry, but the comments you want to characterize as academic comment, really, just aren't. They really just have nothing to do with what I did say I was looking for:

And how would you know that? Because you failed to establish their academic credentials, is that how you know they are not academic content?

The mere fact that someone who said something is an academic by occupation really just doesn't make what s/he said "academic". Hell, if that were the case, everything I said during a big chunk of the last century would have been "legal".

And the mere fact that some anonymous someone disputes something after having failed to produce any evidence one way or the other, means...... what now?

... I was actually saying that I had found 1000 websites where Kohn's name was misspelled ... and not being so obviously sarcastic that I'd be embarrassed to admit I thought otherwise, myself?

Again, sometimes I just have to shake my head when confounded by the lack of.....

Gee. I dunno. What was your purpose in posting this here?

It was a question. The purpose, which I thought clear at the time of posting, was to understand what "purposes" you were assuming some group of people had in "using" the original article.

Surely not to advance the notion that a student's participant-observer study of 37 individuals who like to play at cowboys and Indians tells us something we really need to know.

Geez, its a good thing you uphold the standard of good faith when considering others motivation for participating in a perfectly fun sport. And I applaud your plentiful use of sarcasm too.

Hmm, I wonder. Did you know that her study was a study of 37 individuals? I know the article you posted didn't tell you that, but it sure wasn't hard to find it out.

No. Ask me know if I spent any time researching whether she used ANY scientific modeling at all in this "study".

Anyhow, I tell ya what. Let's just agree that Kohn was an anthropology graduate student when she wrote the thing. That says about all I need to know, in case you haven't gathered.

Oh, I gathered. I think it was clear even before I posted the article how some would react. I just wondered what angle they would take, and how desperate their efforts would be.

[iverglas]

41. here ya go, sweetie

Misquoted, after mistyping...is that the correct order? Tell me again, oh paragon of research ability, what skills I lack.

Basic reading comprehension, I'd say, from the evidence.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22abigail+kohn%22&meta=

That there is my google search -- page one. Number one on the hit list: the site where I lifted the biographical bit about the bright lights of Hollywood.

I wonder how I would have found that one if I'd been searching for "abigal kohn", eh?

Down near the bottom of page 1, Kohn's original Reason Magazine article. I doubt that a search for "abigal kohn" would have found that one, either.

I see that I made it up to page 7 of the results before getting bored, having paused to check what was there at the "More results from www.criminology.law.usyd.edu.au" link on page 4. The Globe and Mail article (Caitlin Kelly) was cited here, at a link on page 7:
http://www.anthropology.it/pages_362693.html
and since I buy the Globe at the newstand and don't subscribe (after that year when I cleaned my living room and found rolled-up unread Globes in all the corners) I didn't have access ... so I plugged a sentence fragment into google and found Breitkreutz's reproduction of it.

Now, I wonder what one finds when one actually searches for "abigal kohn" ...
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22abigal+kohn%22&meta=

Did you mean: "abigail kohn"
No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - "abigal kohn" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

(See how google puts those quotation marks inside the bolding?) Damn. So you'd have to think that I made up all the stuff I found when I searched for ""abigal kohn"" I guess, eh? I mean, I'm struggling valiantly to figure out what you thought, sorta like I might struggle valiantly to figure out how to make a broken Rubic's Cube work, and still having no luck.


Surely not to advance the notion that a student's participant-observer study of 37 individuals who like to play at cowboys and Indians tells us something we really need to know.
Geez, its a good thing you uphold the standard of good faith when considering others motivation for participating in a perfectly fun sport. And I applaud your plentiful use of sarcasm too.

Ah, if only I could ever figure out what you're talking about. Why don't you just say something that makes sense??

I said precisely absolutely 100% FUCK ALL about anybody's motivation for participating in anything. They like to play at cowboys and Indians, and I'm pretty sure they'd tell you that themselves for free. More power to 'em, I guess.

I still don't know what their characteristics might have to do with the characteristics of anybody else who has or uses firearms.

If I wanted to learn something about the characteristics of people who own and listen to hip-hop music, I just wouldn't go to, oh, Portland Maine to do it, myself. And if I for some reason did, I wouldn't be happy if what I wrote about hip-hop fans in Portland Maine were represented by anyone as having anything to do with anything else at all. But then, I'm not an anthropology graduate student who, by her own admission, didn't have clue one about her topic before she went out and participated in it.

Gee. I dunno. What was your purpose in posting this here?
It was a question. The purpose, which I thought clear at the time of posting, was to understand what "purposes" you were assuming some group of people had in "using" the original article.

Lordy, lordy, lordy. Do you think there is some remote possibility that when I said "this" I was referring to the thread, the one you started by posting the glowing review of Kohn's work, and asking what your purpose in posting it in this forum was?

Nah. I was asking why you'd posted the question you refer to. That makes perfect sense.

I'd be heading off to talk to jabberwacky.com for some blessed relief from the short-term amnesia hereabouts if I didn't have some work to do ...


The mere fact that someone who said something is an academic by occupation really just doesn't make what s/he said "academic". Hell, if that were the case, everything I said during a big chunk of the last century would have been "legal".
And the mere fact that some anonymous someone disputes something after having failed to produce any evidence one way or the other, means...... what now?

What are you talking about???

Oh, I gathered. I think it was clear even before I posted the article how some would react. I just wondered what angle they would take, and how desperate their efforts would be.

You see? I was right. If I just got me one of those crystal balls, I could claim to have known it all along. And I suppose I could characterize the preference of a sensible person not to place too much weight on an anthropology student's study of 37 people in Northern California who like to play cowboys and Indians, when it comes to the question of the nature of the gun culture in the US and its various adherents ... let alone on a glowing review from a source with an axe to grind that fails to inform me of the true nature of the study in question ... as "desperate" ... if I were really desperate.

[alwynsw]

10. Huh?

Firearms owners are, after all, consumers of products sold for considerable profit. And ya'd think that an anthropologist studying people's behaviour would be interested in examining the effect of attempts to influence that behaviour. I dunno; did Kohn do this?

Perhaps they're not like consumers of Macdonalds hamburgers or Krispy Kreme doughnuts or $300 running shoes. Perhaps firearms owners aren't at all influenced by the efforts of corporate capitalists to sell them stuff. ... Or perhaps the hamburgers and doughnuts really are fine and nutricious food, and nobody really can walk without those $300 shoes ...

I began reading ads and product reviews later than most, I suppose. My introduction to and love of shooting, hunting, etc. came from my granddad's gun rack. (My grandparents effectively raised me from roughly age 4 to age 13.) I borrowed his .22 to plink, then hunt squirrels and raabbits. Things snowballed from there. Got my first deer at 8.

Advertising had nothing to do with my fondness for shooting sports. It does influence what and where I buy in the accessories column. I rarely buy new firearms. I acquire the vast majority of my firearms through perfectly legal face-to-face transfers from other owners.

Call it an aversion to Uncle Sam knowing about every firearm I own.

[iverglas]

14. late to the party

Really, particularly when a thread is so short that one automatically sees all the posts at a glance ...

Advertising had nothing to do with my fondness for shooting sports.

And, for your special benefit, I will repeat: I don't think there's really good ground for concluding that I, or Diaz, was talking solely and exclusively about "advertising".

I don't actually think that it is "advertising" that persuades silly teenagers that they need or want $300 running shoes, or silly adults that they need or want behemoth motor vehicles. Or USAmericans that they need or want firearms.

So here we go; delete the Macdonalds hamburgers and Krispy Kreme doughnuts (which I had thought were just nice examples of things that people don't really need, and wouldn't really want at all if they were exposed to differing cultural and commercial messages) and go with the $300 running shoes and behemoth motor vehicles, and maybe lipstick and germ-killing disposable wipey things ... and I'm sure we can really all imagine a variety of other things for which demand is created that might not otherwise exist if people were left to their own devices and those things weren't marketed to them by a wide range of cultural and commercial actors.

[Columbia]

48. Guns don't kill people

Advertisers do.

[Dolomite]

17. Shouting out from the bottom of the hole that is the gungeon:

Studying people who are often maligned as racist, jingoistic troglodytes, she portrays a lively and diverse group brought together by common interests in history, mechanics, and liberty. Her colleagues in academia should take her insights to heart, replacing their blind disgust with a more dispassionate understanding of citizens who see a gun as a tool, not a menace.

[iverglas]

20. I'm still curious

When had anyone (and who might it have been who did, and why are we talking about them here ...) portrayed
http://reason.com/0105/fe.ak.their.shtml

... a local posse of cowboy action shooters ...

as "racist, jingoistic troglodytes"?

That original article of Kohn's is quite fun to read.

We began by studying the right-wing militia movement of the early 1990s. Our first foray into the subject would have been comical if it hadn’t been so naïve. Our initial attempt to meet local militia members took us to a shooting range in the Bay Area, where we assumed local militia meetings would be held. We went on a Tuesday night, fully expecting the range to be seething with radical political activity. Why else would people congregate at a shooting range, if not to meet other like-minded, potentially dangerous right-wing gun nuts? It never occurred to us that they might be there for the simple enjoyment of target shooting.

Now riddle me this.

If an anthropology graduate student had decided that she wanted to study hip-hop culture, and told us that she started by studying the African-American gangs of the urban US, and then went to a dance club in the expectation of meeting a bunch of the biggest baddest drug dealers in town -- why else would people congregate at a dance club? -- would s/he have been thought academically fit for fellowship funding?

After we realized that we probably weren’t going to accomplish our original goal of establishing contact with the militia, we starting paying attention to what we could learn at the range. And that first time shooting, I discovered something I knew absolutely nothing about: gun enthusiasm.

And that obviously made it an appropriate subject for her to write a dissertation on.

Participant-observer study is recognized as a valid form of scholarship in the field of anthropology, a field with its own standards -- and it really is important to note that those standards are NOT the ones that apply to quite a few other fields, like sociology and economics and criminology.

But y'know, participant-observer study really does not consist of wandering into a group/location about which one knows absolutely fuck-all, with a complete set of preconceived notions about them/it based on nothing whatsoever, and saying "can I play with you?"


typo fixed

[RoeBear]

45. Where is the nomination button

for Most Boring Thread?

[davepc]

47. lol

[iverglas]

49. here's the question

Abigail A. Kohn, a university student with no knowledge of guns or gun owners, set out to write a graduate thesis.


From the author:
http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/~luken/seminars2001_2.htm

"The Cowboy Way: The Relationship Between Guns and Identity for American Gun Enthusiasts"
Abigail Kohn (University of Sydney, Post-Doctoral Fellow)

In this talk, I will discuss the individual and social identities forged by self-professed gun enthusiasts, or "shooters," in the Northern California region of the United States. The data comes primarily from nineteen semi-structured interviews and a year of ethnographic research at several shooting ranges and shooting competitions. I focus on shooters who participate in "cowboy action shooting," a recreational shooting sport in which enthusiasts don "Wild West" costumes and engage in firearms competitions using antique replica firearms. Shooters utilise myths and narratives of "Wild West" America, images from Hollywood westerns, and popular frontier folklore to self-consciously create identities modelled on fictionalized and "real" characters of the American West. These Wild West identities become the mode for articulating the traditional American values of rugged individualism, self-reliance, and a unique combination of qualities and values that cowboy shooters associated with their guns. By situating the currently stigmatised activity of recreational shooting in a mythologised and heroicized American past, shooters work to legitimate their modern day interest in and enthusiasm for firearms.

http://www.alamoareamoderators.com/wild_west_shootout.htm

Wild West Shootout
Web Posted: 11/14/2004 12:00 AM CST
John Goodspeed
San Antonio Express-News

... The phenomenon of cowboy action shooting drew interest from the academic world, serving as a major portion of anthropologist Abigail A. Kohn's dissertation on America's gun culture that became a book, "Shooters" (2004, Oxford University Press).

She spent months shooting alongside members of a California club to try to understand their fondness for firearms in a time when gun control is a hot political topic that drives a polarizing wedge between the two camps.

She writes: "Cowboy shooters are united in their love of a romanticized vision of a Wild West past, where everybody knew where everybody else stood. The bad guy got what was coming to him, and the good guy rode off into the sunset, secure in the knowledge that his actions were justified by the legitimacy and consistency of his moral code."

Strolling through the Old West town, one member of the Comanche Valley Vigilantes paused on the boardwalk just outside the saloon to describe what cowboy action shooting means to him.

"I like to shoot black powder so I can see the flash and the smoke and watch people duck and cough. I like to wear a pocket watch with a chain and spurs that jingle when I stride down this street.

"I'm somewhere else. I'm somebody else. I'm not Richard Peck, air conditioning contractor; I'm Whiskey Shanegan in the Old West."

Now ... what, exactly, does her topic, or the hobby that was the topic of "a major portion" of her thesis/book, have to do with the issues that form the subject matter of the firearms control / "gun rights" debate?

Is there really a large group of people trying to stop Richard Peck, air conditioning contractor, from playing cowboy vigilante on weekends?

And if Richard Peck, air conditioning contractor, really believes that there is, whose fault might that be?

Might it be kinda the fault of the people who are, as one little part of their wider endeavours, busily touting Kohn's report of what she did on her summer vacation as being somehow about the essence of that debate? The people who spend much of their time portraying firearms control advocates as persecutors of all the good, wholesome, upstanding, moral 'murricans who just want to have a little fun and protect their sheep from the wolves?

I am still being unable to find *any* serious comment on the book or the thesis it grew out of. They do seem to like it over at nugeboard though:
http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/208824.html

Kohn's thesis and book are a study of a particular, small set of individuals who may be representative of some larger group. Certainly they may be representative of other individuals who participate in the hobby of "cowboy action shooting".

Are they representative of people who keep modern firearms for hunting? People who keep modern firearms for other hobby/sport activities? People who keep modern firearms for "self-defence"? People who use firearms to kill their spouses and children? People who use firearms to rob convenience stores? People who use firearms to facilitate their organized criminal activities?

Me, I wouldn't imagine that people who play cowboys and robbers are much different from people who attend NASCAR events. I'm not entirely sure why Kohn, or anyone else, would imagine that I did.

And I'm not at all sure why, if Kohn's aim was to study a "stigmatized" group (as she said it was), she would have chosen a group that just doesn't seem to be stigmatized.

But I do find it interesting that, if the individuals in question feel stigmatized because of their other firearms-related activities and positions, they "work to legitimate their modern day interest in and enthusiasm for firearms" by pretending to be cowboys.

[goju]

50. heres your answer

Now ... what, exactly, does her topic, or the hobby that was the topic of "a major portion" of her thesis/book, have to do with the issues that form the subject matter of the firearms control / "gun rights" debate?

The answer is right there, in black and white, you might have read it?
She spent months shooting alongside members of a California club to try to understand their fondness for firearms in a time when gun control is a hot political topic that drives a polarizing wedge between the two camps.
http://www.alamoareamoderators.com/wild_west_shootout.htm

Is there really a large group of people trying to stop Richard Peck, air conditioning contractor, from playing cowboy vigilante on weekends?

Yes. Do you really need names, or proposed legislation, or...really, do you need proof of this?

And if Richard Peck, air conditioning contractor, really believes that there is, whose fault might that be?

Im just shootin from the hip here, but Id say Tom Diaz and Sara Brady might bear some of that responsibility. Are you at all familiar with their work?

Might it be kinda the fault of the people who are, as one little part of their wider endeavours, busily touting Kohn's report of what she did on her summer vacation as being somehow about the essence of that debate? The people who spend much of their time portraying firearms control advocates as persecutors of all the good, wholesome, upstanding, moral 'murricans who just want to have a little fun and protect their sheep from the wolves?

No.

I am still being unable to find *any* serious comment on the book or the thesis it grew out of. They do seem to like it over at nugeboard though:
http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/208824.h...

Fascinating. Imagine, gun enthusiasts taking note of her work. Will the wonders ever cease?

Are they representative of people who keep modern firearms for hunting? People who keep modern firearms for other hobby/sport activities? People who keep modern firearms for "self-defence"? People who use firearms to kill their spouses and children? People who use firearms to rob convenience stores? People who use firearms to facilitate their organized criminal activities?

Do they need to be representative of those groups?

By situating the currently stigmatised activity of recreational shooting in a mythologised and heroicized American past, shooters work to legitimate their modern day interest in and enthusiasm for firearms.

Me, I wouldn't imagine that people who play cowboys and robbers are much different from people who attend NASCAR events. I'm not entirely sure why Kohn, or anyone else, would imagine that I did.

What you would "imagine" is irrelevant. Im not entirely sure why you think Kohn should be concerned about what you would imagine, or dont.

And I'm not at all sure why, if Kohn's aim was to study a "stigmatized" group (as she said it was), she would have chosen a group that just doesn't seem to be stigmatized.

You were the one that likened cowboy action shooters to NASCAR fans, and then condescendingly referred to that sport as "playing cowboys and indians". Does that sound like a stigmatization, or at least a generalization to you? Sure does to me. Still not sure?

But I do find it interesting that, if the individuals in question feel stigmatized because of their other firearms-related activities and positions, they "work to legitimate their modern day interest in and enthusiasm for firearms" by pretending to be cowboys.

Do you find it interesting, or confusing? Me, Id say its a fantastic way to get people involved in the shooting sports by combining the "action", with the history and lore of the old west. You might not know this, but many here in the US have a fondness for old west history. Anything wrong with that?