Saturday, April 07, 2018

Gun nuts are not nutty

The percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, experiencing poor mental health defined as issues with "stress, depression, and problems with emotions" in the past month, by whether or not they own at least one gun. Red bars show the percentage of gun owners among the demographic group who experience poor mental health. Blue bars show the percentage of non-owners among the same demographic group who experience poor mental health (N = 5,290):

The differences in mental health are modest but since I ran the numbers they may as well be shared here.

Differences are generally larger across demographic groups than they are within demographic groups by gun ownership. The one exception, Jews, have a sample size of only 83 and just 12 of those 83 are gun owners. Given Jewish antipathy towards gun ownership in general and of the NRA in particular, though, the contrast is interesting.

Blacks and political independents who own guns have marginally worse mental health than blacks and political independents without them. Since armed blacks scare SWPLs more than anyone else, their opposition to gun rights is not surprising. For all other groups--and for society on the whole--gun owners tend to have better mental health than do those who don't own guns.

With the small Jewish exception, gun-owning Republicans are the most mentally healthy group of people in the country.

GSS variables used: OWNGUN, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3), SEXORNT(1-2), MNTLHLTH, PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6)


snorlax said...

Could this be an artifact of it being illegal for people who've been involuntarily committed to own guns?

Anonymous said...

Important to note that this is self-reported. Left-wing academics will eventually push the DSM to include "white racism" as a psychological disorder.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

my view is that while the hard core gun types are not mentally ill in the sense that catladies are - they are still obnoxious. Like the oathkeepers and threepers are all basically patriotards.

Ben Kurtz said...

If we wanted to confuse correlation and causation for a moment, could we speculate as to how universal military conscription and the widespread arming of the population have turned Israel into a paradise of stable geniuses who know how to implement policies that advance their national interests without excessive hand-wringing?

Anonymous said...


The IDF doesn't conscript Haredi or non-Druze minorities. For all intents and purposes, IDF reserve officers are the only people in Israel allowed to "own" guns.

In practical effect, it isn't much different than the laws in NS Germany or the USSR. Only ruling party members had the privilege of firearms ownership.

Dan said...

OT, Hungary votes overwhelmingly in favor of Victor Orban. This has Europe-wide implications.

German loves to virtue signal how much they love refugees, but they have been trying desperately to pass them off.

Anonymous said...


Don't be surprised if NATO attempts to remove Orban as they tried with Erdogan.

On a lesser note, they are going to try to squeeze the EU subsidies to recalcitrant countries, presuming the establishment blocs win the EU elections next year.

85% of the German electorate has signaled in hundreds of polls that they will not vote for AfD. Even the Sweden Democrats are polling in the 20s. AfD needs the elderly to vote for the Heimat and not "muh pension", but those same elderly were hedonistic youth that didn't have kids at replacement level.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yeah, there surely is some of that. Maybe not being committed per se, since that's only applicable to a small slice of the population (whereas the percentages who say they experience some amount of poor mental health is nearly 50%.


Self-reports are superior to clinically diagnosed figures in some cases!


A lot of people are obnoxious. Who cares? If I had to leave my children with a person unknown to me beyond whether the person was a Republican gun owner or an unarmed tranny...


Great news.

Dan said...

The frustrating thing with such elections as Hungary's is how the headlines blare 'Democracy in crisis' and 'return to autocracy' when Orban is more genuinely in tune with the Hungarian people than any Western leader.

By Democracy, they mean of course the suppression of the people by any means necessary.

The Constitutional changes made in Hungary are basically these (from BBC):

"One provision limits the power of the Constitutional Court and removes its right to strike out any laws that have already been enshrined in the constitution.

Several other provisions have been criticised as curtailing civil liberties. These include a requirement for students who have received state grants to stay and work in Hungary for a certain period of time after graduating, or pay back the cost of their tuition to the state.

Another article says that preference should be given to traditional (ie heterosexual) family relationships, and says that marriage and the parent-child relationship form the basis of the traditional family."

Horrors! The labeling of the sane center as right-wing-extremist has been one of the more Orwellian aspects of our age.

This may help take the heat off of other countries such as Austria. The gaslighting efforts are extreme, but everyone can't be far-right-wing at the same time, right?

Dan said...

Now they are calling Orban a strongman. Well he is in comparison to their effete selves no doubt, but the idea that he is a dictator because he just won his election in a landslide is more gaslighting.

Sid said...


"If I had to leave my children with a person unknown to me beyond whether the person was a Republican gun owner or an unarmed tranny..."

One of the best things you've ever written. 80% of people would leave their children with the Republican gun owner, and the remaining 20% would raise kids who would need a lot of therapy.

countenance said...

Any significance to be drawn from the no-gun LGBTQs having the highest score?

Dan said...

Jesus H. Christ.

How is it possible for DJT's lawyer to be raided like this? This is nuts.

How can Trump continue?

Dan said...

Jeff Sessions, f you

YIH said...

Only two groups are past the 50% line, you tell me which ones those are :)
Yep, ''da goyim know''.

Audacious Epigone said...


It's intellectually lazy to assume that democracy = liberalism. That's liberal democracy, not democracy per se. In a multi-party system, authority accruing to the leader of the party that dominates the vote is democracy in action. How stupid are these people? Rhetorical.

Their presumption is people will hear "this is a threat to X" and think, "oh no, we better not to it then". In reality, though, what more and more people are thinking is "well, the like this so it's time to start questioning our assumptions about X being good".

Trump can continue because there's nothing in an affair from a decade ago that is going to embarrass Trump in a way that hurts him politically. His sexual prowess and wandering eye were "priced in" years ago. Nobody cares. This just makes the Fake Russia Mueller probe look even more ridiculous and blatantly political.


Sexual deviants have a lot more mental health issues than heterosexuals do. Not sure why the gun difference exists. In a subpopulation like that, with so many crazies, it may genuinely be a consequence of the craziest ones being unable to buy a gun.


Neutoricism has its benefits--and its consequences for the rest of us.

Audacious Epigone said...


Well, it's visceral. I'm a practicing stoic, and negative visualization is a big part of that. So the juxtaposition--and my instinctive choice--comes easily.

Anonymous said...

Sessions was compromised because he committed perjury. No administration official was willing to defend Russia after Flynn was forced out. That's why Sessions either flubbed or lied about the ambassador.

Playing fast and loose with ethics is growing taxing on the moralistic GOP base. Pence and the establishment will quickly push an impeachment resolution through if Trump decides to repeat Nixon's massacre.

There isn't going to be a political solution until after a military solution. 2016 will turn out to be a rear guard action, the real battle was lost in 1994.

Anonymous said...

Is the timing of the Cohen raid connected with the alleged gas attack in Syria?

Give us the war or we indict your family members and associates.

If they dig long enough, they will find something illegal done by Jared Kushner. Michael Cohen looks guilty of money laundering to my layman's eyes.

Start a war with Assad, and quite possibly with Russia, and Trump can forget about re-election. The country can forget about the Constitution.

I cannot possibly endorse anyone fighting in our regime's military, the patriotic thing to do quite possibly might be pulling a Clausewitz and serving in the Russian Army.

Feryl said...

Liberals are more urban.

Urban people are less likely to own a gun.

Urban living causes stress.

Do the Math!

Audacious Epigone said...


Give us the war or we indict your family members and associates.

Then be a god-emperor worthy of the name. Speak directly to the country telling them the bloodthirsty warmongers are trying to blackmail him into starting WWIII. Tell us they're going to bring some technical charges against some friends and associates and to ignore them because they're politically motivated. Give us something to rally to, not something we have to make excuses for.


Yeah, shows up with RES16 (where respondent lived at age 16), though across community types the gun = better mental health holds.

Feryl said...

Trump is not a kamikaze type. I think he's adjusted to doing "the best" he can do, pragmatically. And I hate to say it, but outside of trashing failed GOP elites on the campaign trail, he's generally not shown much willingness toward amassing an army with whom he'd attack elites who are now widely hated by large sections of the population (don't let the MSM fool you, the populace really wants to annihilate the runners of finance, health care, the military, etc.)

As Agnostic clarified, much of Trump's rhetoric is being concentrated toward partisanship and/or foreign countries, when in reality people, as usual, are most disgruntled with the home-grown bozo elites who if we had the choice, would be dog catchers. Most of Trump's voters were moderates or Independents fed up with bullshit from the Left and the Right, and the inability to find a reasonable solution to problems that most people actually care about, e.g. health care, reining in military excess, and so forth.

There's only so many times that Boomers can complain that it's the Left or Right causing every problem in the world before this act grows thin. And America is still the most powerful country in the world; to the extent that foreign countries take advantage of us it's because our own corrupt elites won't stop it, or they actively encourage it.

Both party's elites still act like it's 1995, when hyper partisanship was a novelty and we hadn't had the experience to reject it as a pointlessly destructive and tiring mode of operation. And people can smell scapegoating as soon as they hear it. Why resent China for the fact that America's elites have made money off of off-shoring and trade imbalances for decades?

"blackmail him into starting WWIII"

John Bolton is an imbecile who has no better grasp of human relations, or even cause and effect, than a 2 year old. Some of the most insane war mongers keep him around and fund him as a key lackey, and if that doesn't indict our ideological infrastructure that's been built over the last 30 years I don't know what does. Personally, I think that if the Bolton types get their way, Trump would be best to cite Eisenhower in a resignation speech, and history would judge him to have been redeemed (while the MSM would initially think that he did his most crazy move yet: voluntarily quit, which they also did with Sarah Palin when she stepped down. Elites right now want as much power as possible, and don't understand why a person would choose to quit a big job if they could go on further).

I get GOP paraphernalia all the time that still is clueless. When it comes to hands off or hands on policy, it's still the 80's and 90's to them, when government could never get small enough (meanwhile, the 80's and 90's set the stage for a culture that's economically ravaged Gen X-ers and Millennials). Foreign policy wise, it's still 2003 to them when America was a righteous avenger looking for a battle.

The GOP is screwed. They're going to go the way of the Whig party. Nobody under 40 is going to want anything to do with them for the foreseeable future, And the cohorts born in the late 70's, 80's, and early 90's are going to remain hostile as they get older. To them the GOP is the party that attacked sensible econ. policies in the 80's and 90's, and then over-saw massive unwarranted blood shed in the 2000's and 2010's.

There simply is no reason to support a party that's literally trying to murder thousands of people for no good reason. Which'll also further alienate and antagonize other countries, who continue to hold trade imbalances, debt, and many goods over are heads. It's hard to conceive of a more ass-backward and unappealing ideology. Did they learn nothing when the Trump-sphere went ape-shit over the initial missile strike in Syria back in 2017?

Audacious Epigone said...


Hopefully Trump has learned that he can more-or-less sate their bloodlust, at least for awhile, by dropping some bombs on some buildings and kicking some sand up into the air and let that be that. Hopefully.

Feryl said...

The downside to *any* involvement in aggressive and destabilizing foreign policy is that it could lead to blowback. Like how driving out Saddam and Qaddafi created a vaccum filled by nutty warlords who pose more of a threat to safety and stability than the rulers we drove out.

I used to think that the most important thing was not putting too many boots on the ground in places where we didn't belong, but given recent forays into the MENA (and stuff like the Ukraine coup), I'd say that we no longer have elites who've got any ability to do anything right. Post-WW2 foreign policy of the English speaking countries has gotten progressively worse and created nasty chains of unintended consequences. I mean, when even many liberals are trying to justify fucking around in these places.......Whatever happened to respecting foreign cultures and letting them be? As long as the rulers of Russia, or Iran, or wherever, respect other country's borders and elections, let's just leave 'em alone. That used to be how Western Leftists felt about these things. Guys like Fred Reed, who saw SE Asia first-hand in the 60's/70's, learned quickly that no matter what we felt about strategy or long-term goals, the reality is that foreigners blundering into a strange land often has a great deal of depressing and dark consequences......Which can outweigh the ostensible benefits of intervention in the affairs of other countries.

When we see liberals trying to justify intervention, it just reminds me that we're still in an era of elite arrogance. And plenty of lower status people want to be elites, and end up emulating bad aspects of current elite culture (such as thinking that we have any business toppling secularist and moderate MENA regimes).

Feryl said...

To clarify:

I don't think there's anything to be gained from ANY kind of Western military action in MENA, Africa, Asia, Europe......Because as we've become accustomed to, Western elites are fools who don't have any firm grasp of how to manage our affairs in our best long term interests.

Putin flat-out wants to keep Islamists out of Russia, and pursues a partly pragmatic and partly honor driven policy of supporting MENA regimes who keep the caliphate builders in check. Whereas Western elites (at least the English speaking ones), for reasons I can't entirely grasp, want to sow utter chaos in the MENA, though I'd imagine that the decadent war mongers at the Pentagon simply want to justify having as many large scale military operations as possible with no regard for the long term financial, human, or PR/reputation costs. I do strongly suspect that at some point in the 90's or 2000's Arabists began to heavily infiltrate many or all of the Western powers, and these Arabists bear a strong grudge against MENA rulers who are secularist and/or free from Western influence or control. Russia and the Balitc countries have a political leadership who are very ethnic nationalist and homogenous, and are deeply suspicious of non-European cultures. Notably, as far as I can tell Islamic terrorism was non-existent in the English speaking countries prior to the 1990's. Growing numbers of Muslims, and Muslim attacks, should've caused Western elites to hit the brakes on Islamification, but the opposite happened; some of our elites are now Muslims, or are non-Muslims sympathetic to Muslims.

Audacious Epigone said...


Though it's starting to change, the US currently doesn't have much of a domestic MENA presence. Could that be a reason that it's a prime target for blowing up over and over again? Dead sub-Saharans could make our blacks mad. Dead Amerindians could make our Hispanics mad. Dead Chinese could make our Asians mad. Dead Arabs? Meh.

Anonymous said...


Michigan voted out Spencer Abraham in 2000, an Arab Christian and zealot for mass immigration. Abraham told GWB to campaign on not profiling Muslims as terrorists. Darrell Issa of California actually made pro-Hezbollah(!) statements at several times to the press.

Since France stupidly let in Algerians, after they had just gained their independence and ethnically cleansed the pieds noirs, their policy to Israel flipped from being a bigger supporter than America to being in bed with the Arab elite.

At the same time, Ireland is the most Pro-Palestine country in Europe, and it has only a few Jews and Muslims. Though it did produce the disgusting Alan Shatter (aptly named). Some bizarre leftist Anti-Imperalism that failed to notice the neoliberals like Sutherland that took over without any notice.

Feryl said...

"Though it's starting to change, the US currently doesn't have much of a domestic MENA presence"

The BDS movement has become much more popular among Leftists because so many Millennial and Gen Z-er Americans have "cultural backgrounds" that are strongly anti-Semitic. It used to be that white Western Leftists were peeved over Zionist Right Christians celebrating the 2nd coming atop piles of Arab bodies (the usual CultMarx babbling about Israeli oppressors and Arab victims), but nowadays Hispanic and Muslims are guiding more and more Leftists towards purely anti-Semitic simplistic thinking. If white liberals still had any brains, the Jewish ones in particular ought to be celebrating Anglo gentiles (the most pro-Jewish people in the world) while strongly discouraging the settlement of Latin and Muslim people in Western countries (at least the English speaking ones, at any rate). As usual, Western liberals don't have any keen sense of danger that lies in the future, should demographic and cultural changes continue. A culture that is less Anglo and less Jewish portends doom for the cultural liberalism and pluralism (hedonism) that dominates modern Leftism. No surprise that Cali is the leader in the campus BDS movement, whereas in other, whiter (and more evangelical Christian!) parts of America, Israel finds more support. Well golly gee, since Israel is much less backward than many (all?) Muslim countries, you might think that Western Leftists might side with Israel, but nope.....It's all about evil oppressors and poor pitiful victims.

The hands-off approach to behavior championed by post-1970 Leftists (The DSM removed homosexuality from the mental disorder list around 1973) not only won't be impossible when tribal theocratic barbarian culture starts to downgrade Anglo-Saxon culture, but even the imposition of TradLeftist culture will make it easier to rein in decadent bourgeois.

Personally I want to rein in the excesses of classical liberalism, but if cucks and decadent liberals (not Bernie Bros, but middle aged latte sippers in Manhattan and Malibu) refuse the polite requests of white Anglo reformers, then perhaps we'll end up with hardcore communism or a fascist police state which is more likely to be embraced by Latino and Muslims (and younger generations) than Western whites who grew up in Eisenhower's and Reagan's America.

I still think that we will see big changes when elites feel genuine heat.....As long as cucks and yuppies and SJWs can tell themselves that their money, their status, and their uh, personal safety is still there, why should they change their tune?

Feryl said...

As strange as it might seem, the crackdown of Free Speech may not be such a bad thing, when you realize that if the culture and/or leadership changes, we could then apply much needed restraints on other practices......Such as passing out opioids like candy, having wide open borders, offshoring good jobs, and the kind of sexual deviance that creates STD epidemics.

Right now the corporate CultMarx caste wants no restrictions on elite greed or personal hedonism, so the only thing they want to crackdown on is dissent towards the CultMarx caste. But as we all know, ideas which aren't universally popular tend to have a short shelf life. Moreover, the suppression of dissent does nothing to assuage the discontent which creates the dissent in the first place. Censorship of dissent is like placing a band-aid on a massive hemorrhaging laceration. Eventually the band-aid will be pushed off and the wound will flow out.

Particularly daft is the notion of diversity and pluralism at all costs....In reality (largely affluent) Western white liberals are the only people who have sincere affection toward the notion. I even know some old-school white Democrats like my parents who hate BLM and have said unflattering things about Muslims. Everyone else doesn't buy it, or only cynically pushes it for more gibs.

Audacious Epigone said...


As strange as it might seem, the crackdown of Free Speech may not be such a bad thing, when you realize that if the culture and/or leadership changes, we could then apply much needed restraints on other practices

That's the argument for authoritarianism/fascism. The fight moves from the arena of ideas to control of government. The left is already there. The right may end up there out of necessity, cucking and screaming all the way.

ideas which aren't universally popular tend to have a short shelf life

Socialism? I guess it does come close to universal popularity, though.

Feryl said...

I was looking Agnostic's old posts, searching for certain buzzwords, where I found an observation that the key to the Anglo West doing so well from circa 1930-1970 was that our governments and elites embraced "soft" controls of hedonism and economics (as did I suppose the Scandinavian countries). Even amongst some groups of whites, let alone non-whites, their was too much excess in the direction of either fascism or communism. But instead of judging these people as naive, stupid, or corrupt for buying into regimes that proved to be destructive, we should remember where authoritarianism came from in the first place. We go through periods of "pulling back" our controls of the bedroom and the boardroom, and elites grow increasingly arrogant in spite of rising indicators of social dysfunction (such as high rates of poverty, psychic distress, drug use, poor race relations, etc.). In turn, after several generations come of age in an increasingly harsh climate, populist ideologues come about promising to restore sensible controls on behavior (be it "lifestyle" choice or free enterprise avarice).

The thing to remember about the Me Generation is that they don't personally remember the decadence of the late 1800's and early 1900's, so they are utterly clueless as to why prohibition or Nazi Germany happened. They more commonly understand why the New Deal came about (the depression and fear of populist uprisings), though of course the Me Gen eventually was able to shred the New Deal. But Millennials and Gen Z have grown up in an environment that's similar to the one we had around circa 1900, WRT corruption, loose enforcement of moral norms, high immigration levels, and the like. The Rock and Roll posturing of those who grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's is just not going to be appealing to generations who grew up in a Dickensian climate. One funny thing about Bill Clinton is how he and his like-aged peers, as they came to power, hosted events and celebrations in which prominent 60's artists performed. That the Boomers had come to power, had embraced the trappings of status, could be rationalized as The Rock and Roll generation "keeping it real" in the sense that they still were doing exactly what they wanted to do; whatever we do, we still get to call the shots.

The heart of the matter, sadly enough, is that those who are socialized to not appreciate modesty or restraint will ultimately be driven, more often than not, by the idea that what's important in life is not having to play by any one's rules but your own.

Gen X-ers are a toss-up, with the liberal ones often being disgusted by materialism and the more conservative ones tending to have a very harsh attitude toward "lifestyle" deviance, foreigners, and so forth. The same could be said for Boomers, though IMO Boomers so frequently fail to live up to their words or "values", and so many of them have invested in dated ideology, that real change will be driven by X-ers at the older end of the electorate with Millennials and Gen Z forming an electoral trident that will cut through corruption and dated ideas....If Boomers allow it to happen. If they don't, then we will crash hard and will take a long time to get back up on our feet, if we ever do.

Feryl said...

"That's the argument for authoritarianism/fascism. The fight moves from the arena of ideas to control of government. The left is already there. The right may end up there out of necessity, cucking and screaming all the way."

The Right has been there also since the Patriot Act. Perhaps the best way to put it is elites of all stripes have been promoting controls of the populace for the benefit of elites since at least 2002. The crucial factor here is populism, as defined by control of elites; The Left suppressed the populist champion in 2016, causing the elitist thug candidate (Clinton) to handily lose. The Right couldn't boot out their populist champion who went on to win; however in his reign corrupt factions of the elite are suppressing any and all attempts at implementing controls on corrupt elite behavior.

Ultimately I think that the Left has the much bigger upper hand, because Left elites will find it easier to give up on their hedonistic hobby horses than Right elites will give up on their avarice. Besides, having an STD or drug addiction can be put down to poor individual choices, whereas grinding poverty, excess wars, shitty wages, a non-existent middle class, and so forth can readily be attributed to corrupt elites. No lower class person wanted poorer wages, fewer benefits, fewer pensions, more immigrants to compete with, and the like.

Instead of getting hung up on misleading stuff about race, let's look at historical parallels. Leftist ideology, as defined by stricter control of economic behavior, gained widespread appeal throughout the entire world from the 1920's-1960's's. In heavily white America of the 20's-60's, the GI Generation famously kept FDR in power for a long long time, then saw to it that Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon leave existing government programs/agencies alone and often created new ones to boot. All the same, if America's was still that white we would likely see white Millennials be equally enthusiastic about the Dems, esp. if the Dems would shut the fuck up about stupid white males.

So it's all about cycles; even adjusting for national demographics and the changing of such, across the entire world we see shifts from Leftist to Rightist ideology (again, focusing on econ. ideology, not culture war stuff). 1870-1920 was a Rightist paradigm that eventually gave us widespread poverty and corruption, which in turn shifted us to adopting Leftism from 1920-1970. People get tired of the obligations of a Leftist society though, so from 1970-2020 a Rightist paradigm reigned once again. But we get tired of the poverty and corruption inflicted by not controlling elites enough, so the Rightist paradigm is running on fumes, and the 2020 election will be the death knell for the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Obama era of "too big to fail".

And yes, the immigration moratorium of 1925-1965 neatly falls within the era of resurgent Leftism, proving once again that the biggest boosters of high immigration levels are conservative business owner types who's greed is more catered to in a Rightist paradigm. During that moratorium, conservative elites could rationalize lower immigration levels by claiming that the culture, and tradition, was being preserved. In reality, they were responding and adjusting to the Leftist paradigm of heavily enforced security for workers. Resource related factors drove low immigration levels, not so much genuine concern for cultural continuity (and cultural factors take a backseat to economic controls in a Leftist paradigm).

Feryl said...

Very few conservatives opposed higher immigration levels in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when Rightist econ. ideology solidified and became widely adopted. The general consensus is that we have enough resources, and enough uh, mojo, to withstand the importation of large waves of immigrants who provide cheap labor and thus can be an engine for fast growth. The cultural changes, and ethnic conflicts, that immigrants bring are over-looked or down-played as an acceptable cost of private sector driven wealth acquisition. Back in the 1920's and 30's, a time of surging Leftism, the combination of a financially and culturally besieged native population (as well as genuine concern for the dignity of immigrants) drove us to place limits on immigration levels that would've been considered unthinkable in the late 1800's. But a back lash began to grow from 1900-1920, not unlike how 2000-2020 has been a period of revived interest in populism and placing restraints on elites. It's just that we don't see in immediate change; the transition periods last for 20-30 years, than we fully enter a different era. 1940 was a much different era than 1910, just like how 2030 will be much different than 2000.