Nearly 1 in 10 Americans have severe anger issues and access to guns

[Electric Monk]

(cross-posting from GCRA for your edification)

Roughly 22 million Americans -- 8.9 percent of the adult population-- have impulsive anger issues and easy access to guns. 3.7 million of these angry gun owners routinely carry their guns in public. And very few of them are subject to current mental health-based gun ownership restrictions.

Those are the key findings of a new study by researchers from Harvard, Columbia and Duke University. "Anger," in this study, doesn't simply mean garden-variety aggravation. It means explosive, uncontrollable rage, as measured by responses to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication in the early 2000s. It is "impulsive, out of control, destructive, harmful," lead author Jeffrey Swanson of Duke University said in an interview. "You and I might shout. These individuals break and smash things and get into physical fights, punch someone in the nose."

Angry people with guns are typically young or middle-aged men, according to Swanson's research. They're likely to be married, and to live in suburban areas. In a recent op-ed, Swanson and a co-author point to Craig Stephen Hicks, a North Carolina man who "had frightened neighbors with his rages and had a cache of fourteen firearms" and who shot three Muslim students earlier this year, as a quintessential example of an enraged gun owner.

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/08/nearly-1-in-10-americans-have-severe-anger-issues-and-access-to-guns/

even more more

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1-in-10-americans-has-anger-issues-and-access-to-guns/

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-angry-impulsive-gun-access-20150408-story.html

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/04/08/Armed-and-angry-Almost-1-in-10-adults-have-rage-and-gun-access/9611428499393/

http://rt.com/usa/248377-americans-anger-gun-ownership/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/nearly-one-10-americans-have-anger-issues-and-access-guns

[Optical.Catalyst]

1. Drive by post with no comment

So Mr. Monk, what is your desired message to convey with this google dump?

[Electric Monk]

4. It's news that speaks for itself. I sure have experienced anger directed at me here in the gungeon.

nt

[Optical.Catalyst]

6. The news sure does speak for itself

had a cache of fourteen firearms

His neighbor has definite deficit in arms. Reminds me to check with my new neighbors to make sure they have sufficient capabilities to be counted on when trouble starts.

[Electric Monk]

8. Did this study make you angry? Seems like it. nt

[Lurks Often]

10. You seem to be the one who is angry

Two posts hidden by juries in the past couple of weeks, both in firearms related OP's

You went all META in your safe haven complaining about the jury results on one and Skinner himself came in and said it was a good hide. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628570 Skinner's response is post 24.

[Electric Monk]

12. LOL, speaking of meta, and with an axe to grind.

[Marengo]

46. Please explain in detail what you characterize as "angry" in the post you responded to.

Details, as in specific examples, not generalities.

[Electric Monk]

47. Saying the problem is not enough guns, in response to this study.

It sure wasn't all warm and fuzzy.

That you would be confrontational about it

Please explain in detail what you characterize as "angry" in the post you responded to.

Details, as in specific examples, not generalities.

leads me to think that you're kinda angry, too.

[Marengo]

49. A nonsensical response. You don't seem understand the definition of "angry"...

"Saying the problem is not enough guns, in response to this study."

Explain how this is "anger".


It sure wasn't all warm and fuzzy.

By this do you mean any response defined, by you, as not "warm and fuzzy" is "angry"?

[Electric Monk]

50. I notice you haven't addressed the study, either, just focusing on me. Confrontationally, too. nt

[Marengo]

52. And I'm noticing your infantile game here...

Care to address the questions in my post?

[Electric Monk]

54. Ah, name calling. This study definitely hit a nerve with you. nt

[Marengo]

58. Odd, since I haven't read the study. I'm more interested in your need to characterize...

any challenge to the study as "angry".

[Electric Monk]

60. I think petronius made some interesting points in reply #19, without being hostile about it. nt

[Marengo]

62. Let's return to the discussion of your definition of "angry" which you seem to be avoiding...

"Saying the problem is not enough guns, in response to this study."

Explain how this is "anger".


It sure wasn't all warm and fuzzy.

By this do you mean any response defined, by you, as not "warm and fuzzy" is "angry"?

[Marengo]

89. To clarify, is this sarcasm or serious?

Your post has been referenced as an example of the "more guns as a solution to gun violence" view.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172165116#post36

[Optical.Catalyst]

90. If you re-read what I posted

I never once mentioned the Gee word. I made a comment about the referenced news article to show the ridiculous concept about quantity of personal effects implying intent. Then I changed the subject to communicating with my new neighbors about their capabilities. Note that capabilities encompass much more than self defense.

[Marengo]

91. That's how I interpreted your post, but someone else thinks you are advocating...

the "more guns as a solution to gun violence" view.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172165116#post36

[Electric Monk]

92. We're in a thread about people with anger issues having access to guns, in the Gungeon Group...

and we're all supposed to assume he was talking about making sure they had enough potable water.

[Marengo]

93. And you decided to cite that post, in another thread, as an example

of a "more guns as a solution to gun violence" argument. Looks like you're being told otherwise. Still gonna roll with that? Are you suggesting that poster is dishonest?

[NYC_SKP]

2. "They're likely to be married, and to live in suburban areas."

We need to shut down suburbs. From now on, no married men allowed in the suburbs.

[Eleanors38]

27. There's a certain segment in DU who wouldn't mind "...no married men..." anywhere.

[tularetom]

3. Young and middle aged men, huh?

Simple, pass a law saying only Americans on Social Security can own firearms. Viola, no more young angry men running around shooting everybody.

Post a silly article and you'll get silly replies.

[flamin lib]

5. Yep, this qualifies as a simple post.

How about commenting on the ramifications of this informatio ?

These numbers are based on those who ADMITTED to having uncontrolled cits of violence. I'm sure the false negatives are quite high for this survey.

So, if 3.7 million CCs have anger management issues is that bothersome to you in the least?

[oneshooter]

9. If the OP doesn't care enough to comment, why should I? n/t

[flamin lib]

13. The OP has defended the post.

What say you? What say you to me?

[oneshooter]

15. Defending is not the same as commenting. n/t

[flamin lib]

17. I commented on it.

Not up to it?

[Shamash]

7. So, what you're saying is

That 22,000,000 people with easy access to guns have "explosive, uncontrollable rage", rage which is so uncontrollable that fully .05% of them act on it to commit murder with those guns (assuming about 10,000 firearm murders per year).

Wow. A full .05% in a whole year. That must be some really uncontrollable rage we're talking about if one person out of two thousand suffering from it actually does something about it after being armed and angry for a full year.

In other news, nearly 1 in 1 DU gun control hosts thinks that posting seven media links to the same story makes it look more authoritative.

[flamin lib]

14. Your post is beneath the dignity of a response except to say that it is beneath . . . nt

[Shamash]

16. Woe is me, I am devastated by the intellect displayed in your insightful rebuttal...

[flamin lib]

18. As well you should be. See, we can agree! nt

[ileus]

23. Well said...logic works every time.

[ileus]

11. Excellent news...those 10% are why I carry.

Safety first, trust your life to no one. (unless you're like bloomberg and can afford bodyguards)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Well, if it's any consolation, based on the behaviors displayed by the antis in our midst

while they may, in fact, have deep-seated anger issues at least they're disinclined to own firearms.

[petronius]

19. A couple of things that come to mind after a quick skim of the research paper itself:

1) The measure of 'gun possession' may be problematic. The question that was asked is "How many guns that are in working condition do you have in your house, including handguns, rifles, and shotguns?", but this may not distinguish gun owners from people living in households that contain guns (a similar problem crops up in other surveys of gun ownership).


2) If we accept that the gun possession question is really identifying gun owners, the results don't show any difference in angry behavior between people who do own (possess) guns and people who don't:

The proportions of respondents who reported having tantrums or anger outbursts (19.1% in the total sample) or at least one of the anger items (25.0% in the total sample) were not significantly related either to having guns in the home (? = 0.0–0.4, p = 0.51–0.98) or to the number of guns among those having any (? = 1.8–3.3, p =0.52–0.77). By comparison, the proportion of respondents who reported breaking or smashing things in anger (11.6% in the total sample) was significantly lower among respondents with guns in the home than among those without (10.0% vs. 12.6%, ?=8.1, p = 0.007), although it was not significantly related to the number of guns among those having any (?=4.8,p = 0.32). The proportion of respondents who reported losing their temper and fighting (6.0% in the total sample) was not significantly related to having guns in the home (?=0.3,p = 0.61), but was positively and significantly associated with the number of guns among those who had any guns (?=13.4,p =0.018).

(Chi-square values are given parenthetically.)

3) a larger difference the study reports is between people who carry guns outside the home and those that don't. In this case, the question which was asked was "Not counting times you were shooting targets, how many days during the past 30 days did you carry a gun outside your house?” A possible issue here is that it does not account for why those persons were carrying, under what circumstances, whether it was legal (with permit or otherwise).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. It's a pertinent semantic quibble

but I don't think it detracts from the study if you simply avoid the word 'owner'. Obviously the Sandy Hook mass murderer did not 'own' the guns he used, he simply took them from his mother, who did.

[petronius]

81. The extent to which that first point matters depends on what inferences one wants

to draw from the study: if it's just to quantify the proportion of people who self-report 'impulsive angry behaviors' and also have access to guns, then it doesn't matter who owns the gun(s). And in that case, the authors found that the rate of 'angry behavior' was the same between people with and without gun access - not a particularly interesting or surprising result, really.

But if the objective is to explore whether there's an association between anger and deliberate gun ownership, as much of the coverage seems to imply, then the question of actual ownership becomes relevant.

Another issue with that part of the paper, and the reporting thereof, is whether the self-reported 'impulsive angry behaviors' ("having angry outbursts, becoming angry and breaking or smashing things, losing one’s temper and getting into physical fights&quot are associated with any increased risk of firearms-related violence or harm - that's an unsupported assumption on the part of the authors and reporters.

One point to note is that the 'angry impulsive behaviors' getting all the media attention, and which are largely the topic of the thread, is not the mental disorders of the article title. There's a whole section of the paper--the meat of it really--addressing diagnosable mental conditions. That section is getting little if any attention in the news articles...

[stone space]

83. The focus on "ownership" is a capitalistic fettish. What matters is access.

"Ownership" is a legal illusion, but the existence of the gun itself in your house is quite real.

[Shamash]

20. Wait a minute...

I just noticed something:

(cross-posting from GCRA for your edification)

Can someone explain to me how I am supposed to be edified by anything cross-posted from GCRA?

Oh, I get it! A really delayed April Fool's joke! I admit it, you had me going there for a while.

[virginia mountainman]

22. Anyone else notice, almost identical articles...All with the same premise...

All within days, if not hours of each other????

This is a case study on how the mainstream media parrots the "anti gun line" almost in complete and total lockstep. And how some eat it all up, and regurgitate it.

Talk about "talking points"...... Next time anyone screams "NRA Talking Points" show them this thread and ask the question:

Just exactly who really is receiving and parroting, the "talking points"..

[ileus]

24. mommy and bloomy approved...

It's for the chillins' after all.

[DonP]

25. Gun Control "Flavor 'O the Month"?

Let's see how much the control minded folks actually do to move legislation about this in the next few weeks.

You know? Real world stuff, like petitions, letters to the editor and congressmen and women?

Or is it just another "Hula Hoop", that will fade away until the next "Big" medical discovery about how bad guns are.

I'm sure our friends in the "Activism" named group are already busy formulating a plan to do something about this.

(for the proven perceptually challenged)

[ileus]

26. Next week we'll be discussing how Wal-Mart is being pressured to stop selling firearm & ammo.

Hopefully WM will tell the 1%ers no.

[Eleanors38]

29. Perhaps MSM is trying to get the squirrel to run the old gun control cage. Again.

[Eleanors38]

28. Do I see Russia Today among the usual suspects?

"...mental health based gun control restrictions" come after due process of law, outlined in the 5th Amendment.

[Electric Monk]

30. re: "usual suspects" there are literally dozens more, too

Would you prefer Haaretz? http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.651193

or perhaps Sky News Australia? http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/nthamerica/2015/04/08/americans-with--anger-issues--own-guns.html

Is NewsMax more your style? http://www.newsmax.com/US/guns-gun-ownership-anger-mental-illness/2015/04/09/id/637463/

I'm guessing you're not a fan of Mother Jones? http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/04/anger-problems-guns-study

It's even on guns.com. Is that better for you? http://www.guns.com/2015/04/09/study-anger-not-mental-health-key-factor-in-gun-violence-video/

How about Medical News Today? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292131.php

The American Register? http://www.theamericanregister.com/10-of-americans-have-anger-issues-and-have-access-to-gun/10848/

See here for even more: https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d0e7EN3DG3d-4QMnY1yHY8C3XW9ZM&q=guns&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GfYmVcH-K8vAsAX434AQ&ved=0CCMQqgIwAQ

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Just asking

Are you against or in favor of the 5th Amendment?

[Electric Monk]

32. In regards to people volunteering the info that they have anger issues and access to guns?

The 5th is about being compelled to testify against yourself. I think that's what you're getting at?

[Eleanors38]

36. There is the due process clause as well.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. I was referring to due process as a requirement...

...for depriving one of "life, liberty, or property".

[Electric Monk]

38. Oh, you've concluded it makes sense that something should be done, but how, legally?

That's a good question.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. I addressed the issue of dangerous mental problems...

...in an OP in GCRA a while back. I put forward an option of something which might be done but there was little interest. The basis, IIRC, of the OP was to find a way to have some of the mental problems which now ought to be but are not recorded in the national database used for NICS included.

However, I continue from that point and suggest treatment of those conditions be mandated. This is the perfect place for a no cost federal program to start. Offering treatment for issues that severe and common.


OT: My personal belief is that trying to remove some, many or most guns from society (especially from those that would present a risk in possessing guns) is like trying to clean a dinner plate with a pair of tweeters, removing each speck and crumb through tedium and by minute examination. It would be more productive to heal those individuals of problems so that society contained a greater percentage of wholesome, righteous and productive persons.

[Shamash]

33. If you genuinely believe that the number of places you can find a story

is an indication of its accuracy that supercedes any critical analysis of that story, then I'm afraid I have some bad news for you about the great Zionist Conspiracy, Nazis on the Moon and our benevolent Reptile Overlords, whom I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for.

[Electric Monk]

34. I'm showing that this study has been noticed by many, yet you'd rather ignore it.

It's not some obscure blogger making claims.

[Shamash]

39. Can I quote you on that?

Regarding the CDC report saying that guns are used more often in legitimate self-defense than they are used in violent crime? And that those who use a gun in self-defense have on average, better personal outcomes than those who use any other methods?

Because that was widely reported as well. I guess I just failed to notice your public support for its findings.

Or maybe it was noticed by many, but you would rather ignore it.

[Electric Monk]

41. I'm familiar with it, but don't see what it has to do with this thread

or that your interpretation of it is accurate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use-The-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence

* The CDC report made no effort to reconcile the differing estimates of DGUs, except to note that the estimate provided by the Kleck group was larger by an order of magnitude than the estimate arising from the NCVS. The CDC report noted that the estimate of DGU provided by the Kleck group is twice again as large as the estimate of the Dept. of Justice that there are 1.3 million crimes committed with a gun in the USA every year.

* According to the CDC report: “The 2005 National Research Council study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that passage of right to carry laws decrease or increase violent crime. ”

The take-home message by the CDC report on gun violence is that DGU does occur, and there are very large discrepancies in the available estimates. And sadly, the CDC report contains no suggestions for future research to better or more accurately assess DGU.

[Shamash]

42. Amusing how you avoided quoting the -actual- report language

That would have been an objective way of looking at it and letting people measure whether I have misinterpreted anything. Instead you chose to link and quote a third party blog entry by someone who grinds the same axe as you, and which could not even bring itself to directly link to the actual report lest someone read it for themselves and discover the Kos diarist was as full of...something...as you. By the way, I criticized the author of the blog entry you linked for ignoring the exact same part of the report as you. He didn't address that oversight, either.

What a coincidence! And that of course, is how it relates to this thread, you making the statement of "this study has been noticed by many, yet you'd rather ignore it." and me pointing out you doing that exact same sort of ignoring news that disagrees with your existing biases and automatically granting credibility to news that supports those biases.

I think my assessment of you has been adequately demonstrated as correct. Again.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies

Unlike either you or the Kos diarist, I provide a link to the actual report so that you can read the whole thing. It's long, it is informative, it is free and worth downloading so you have it on hand. I recommend it to gun rights and gun control people equally. There are parts I do not agree with, but I am perfectly willing to let other people read it and decide for themselves rather than merely linking to an opinion piece by someone who shares my personal interpretation and passing that off as an authoritative treatment of the subject.

You of course are free to cherry pick just the parts that suit you (hey look, ignoring the news!), but the quotes above reflect the consensus view of the CDC and its panel of outside experts on the aspects of the subject that I referred to (read the whole thing if you want the whole context). But EM, if the results are not to your liking, don't link to it, don't quote it and don't report on it objectively. Oh wait...

link

In case you feel the need to further cement people's opinions of you, the last word is yours.

[Electric Monk]

43. I still don't see what that has to do with this OP, about gun owners with anger issues

but you do seem rather angry, so I guess your post is relevant that way...

[Marengo]

45. Please explain in detail what you characterize as "angry" in the post you responded to.

Details, as in specific examples, not generalities.

[Electric Monk]

48. If you don't see it, it's because you don't want to. nt

[Marengo]

51. Or more likely, it doesn't actually exist...

You're playing a child's game here, and it's absurdly transparent.

[Electric Monk]

53. "I think my assessment of you has been adequately demonstrated as correct. Again."

Trying to make it about me, instead of about a recent study showing a correlation of a percentage gun owners with anger issues. Changing the subject, hey! look over there, etc.

Yep, this study hit a nerve. I can tell you're not happy about it, either.

[Marengo]

56. And now you may explain why I'm "not happy about it"...

Details, not generalities.

[Electric Monk]

57. Self-evident, since you've chosen to confront me instead of address the study. nt

[Marengo]

64. That isn't an answer to the question posed. Let's try again...

Yep, this study hit a nerve. I can tell you're not happy about it, either.

What nerve has been struck? What am I not happy about?

[blueridge3210]

63. You keep seeing anger

In posts made outside your "safe haven" where you cannot have the poster blocked. Simple really.

[Electric Monk]

65. Another gunthusiast trying to make it about me instead of the news reports in the OP. Yay!

Right, you're not seething inside but doing your best to cover it up. We believe you

[Marengo]

66. "Seething"? Where is the evidence this poster is "seething"?

[Electric Monk]

67. I know them from previous encounters here in the gungeon, and they're trying to make it about me

just like you are.

I'm finding this rather funny, though entirely predictable.

[Marengo]

68. Fair enough, but "seething"? Usage of that usually implies intense anger...

It's a fairly strong charge to level. Can you provide evidence?

[Marengo]

70. Your inability to justify the charges you level and the content of the study are separate issues...

It is you who are attempting to make any such query for you to define what is "angry" in a given post as diversionary tactic from discussing the study. Why would you do that?

[Electric Monk]

72. You wouldn't happen to be a middle aged white male who owns a lot of (6+, say) guns, would you?

I knew many of our DU Gunthusiasts would take this study personally before I even posted it.

I'm going to take my dog for a walk now. It's too lovely an evening to waste on you. I will check back in later, though.

[Marengo]

73. Why would you ask such a question, and why do you think many would take it personally?

[blueridge3210]

74. Run away. (nt)

[Electric Monk]

75. Lovely night to walk the dog. I'm back. Do you have anything constructive to contribute yet?

Or just more attacking the messenger while unintentionally demonstrating the message has a valid point?

[blueridge3210]

78. Uh, yeah.

Maybe one day you'll realize that it's not all about you. A real shame you cannot get this level of participation in your " safe haven".

[Marengo]

71. What is "predictable"?

[blueridge3210]

69. "Gunthusiast"?

You made yourself the issue when you opted to describe a poster who disagrees with you as angry. Typical passive-aggressive misdirection by the pro-control crowd; if they cannot define the narrative then claim victim status after initiating a personal attack.

[DonP]

76. He's just another of our "online" psychiatrists that can diagnose you from one post

We've had more than few of them over the years here.

They know if you're angry, threatened, terrified, feeling inadequate, they can even tell your penis length online.

Their greatest service is to give us someone to laugh at.

This one is particularly sad because he wanted to host his own group and never spends any time there and doesn't seem to be able to motivate more than the same 2 or 3 people to even bother posting there.

[Electric Monk]

77. So, what did you think of the study in the OP there, Don? I think I could probably guess.

Please, do go on, Governor.

[DonP]

80. Guess? Wow! Mind reading too now? Pity Ed Sullivan isn't on anymore

Your act could follow the guy that spins 12 plates at a time, but before Senor Wences. Do you wear a turban with a big jewel in the center like Karnak?

My comment?

Here's another piece of "Big News" that gun controllers will do absolutely nothing about but try and trumpet for a week or so, then lose interest, wander away and find a new shiny piece of tinfoil, like they always do. No commitment, no consistency, no action, no infrastructure.

The practical problem with this issue is access to mental health and medical records in general and the barrier there is going to be the HIPPA laws and the ACLU, much more than the NRA.

[blueridge3210]

79. Yup. (nt)

[Eleanors38]

35. Gun control has always been an elitist outlook. Without MSM, it wouldn't even be that.

[virginia mountainman]

44. *chuckles...

Talk about getting the "talking points" out

[leveymg]

59. Many of them are Law Enforcement Officers. n/t

[Electric Monk]

61. Oh, yes, I'm sure of that. I wonder how the percentages would break down, in a more detailed study?

nt

[NutmegYankee]

82. What do you propose?

Since RKBA is an enumerated civil right, it cannot be taken away without due process per the 5th Amendment. I realize there are some who don't believe the RKBA is an individual right, but it's hard to take them seriously. I view such individuals like I do those who oppose the right to choice or the right for gays to marry (soon to be law).

As the article noted, the best you can do is restrict ownership based on violent crimes conviction. Care of course has to be taken to not include crime disproportionately applied to minorities, like "resisting arrest" where there is a high likelihood that no crime happened at all.

[NaturalHigh]

84. Cool story bro.

I'm going to write myself a sticky note reminding me to be concerned.

[Electric Monk]

85. You mad, bro?

[NaturalHigh]

86. I know I've asked you this before...

but what's with all the cartoons?

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. Apparently, the belief is that appeals to ridicule will bring them political success

Given the trend of gun control in recent years, it's really another form of political masturbation, an attempt by the ineffectual to persuade themselves that they're 'doing something'.

[NaturalHigh]

88. And it's so effective!

I wish they could at least find some better cartoons.