Do you feel products like this can cast a negative or violent image of gun owners?

[USAF_Vet]

If someone hasn't noticed - skulls are definitely "in" as a decorative aesthetic.

T-shirts? Thousands of variations worn daily.
Stickers? We just got more in for applying to vehicles. Common on a lot of cars and trucks.

People are reaching down into the offensive precisely because of the stratification of social life - I got money, you don't - so it creates boundaries. I'm "skull," all about death and menace, you ain't.

Bikers have been doing this for over 65 years. Add in all the other groups who sought to distinguish themselves from the mainstream.

Did you Dad or Grandpa sport fuzzy dice on the mirrors in the '50s? Many did NOT - they had a shrunken head with stitched over eyes and mouth. A simple fantasy rubber piece made offshore and sold in a lot of gas stations back then. It came from an aboriginal practice of eating other humans and then preserving the remains as a token example of their power.

Yep, the '50's weren't all bobby socks and poodle skirts. Popular notion on PBS, the reality was a lot darker on some days. No real difference than now.

I wouldn't be worried about a skull on an AR - in comparison to the nudie grips for 1911's, it's relatively tame. These items are sometimes meant to offend, as much as possible, to distinguish the people who possess them and set them apart from the herd. Like the crowd of Darth Mauls who show up at conventions.

In today's society nice doesn't get you anything but disrespect - the common currency is now anger and menace. You either got some or you are prey. THIS is why Open Carry is so attractive.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . .

Excellent examples. How about military unit patches, both Heritage approved and the secondary, unauthorized morale patches that are unit specific?

Skulls, reapers, death imagery in general has been used in military service for a long, long time, as well as weapons of war. Swords, knives, rifles, muskets and even lightning bolts are common in combat unit insignias. A lot of guys (and gals) buying ARs these days are recently separated veterans of OEF/OIF and other recent conflicts. While the skull AR lower isn't milspec, it portrays a certain image they can identify with. Especially the younger crowd who instead of Boy Scouts, grew up with the X-Box.

 

[Glock1978]

Do you feel products like this can cast a negative or violent image of gun ow...

It looks neat but I wouldn't buy it. I also recently watched The Punisher for the first time and think those backplates for Glocks with the Punisher logo is insanely stupid. Before I just thought they were childish.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

If someone hasn't noticed - skulls are definitely "in" as a decorative aesthetic.

T-shirts? Thousands of variations worn daily.
Stickers? We just got more in for applying to vehicles. Common on a lot of cars and trucks.

People are reaching down into the offensive precisely because of the stratification of social life - I got money, you don't - so it creates boundaries. I'm "skull," all about death and menace, you ain't.

Bikers have been doing this for over 65 years. Add in all the other groups who sought to distinguish themselves from the mainstream.

Did you Dad or Grandpa sport fuzzy dice on the mirrors in the '50s? Many did NOT - they had a shrunken head with stitched over eyes and mouth. A simple fantasy rubber piece made offshore and sold in a lot of gas stations back then. It came from an aboriginal practice of eating other humans and then preserving the remains as a token example of their power.

Yep, the '50's weren't all bobby socks and poodle skirts. Popular notion on PBS, the reality was a lot darker on some days. No real difference than now.

I wouldn't be worried about a skull on an AR - in comparison to the nudie grips for 1911's, it's relatively tame. These items are sometimes meant to offend, as much as possible, to distinguish the people who possess them and set them apart from the herd. Like the crowd of Darth Mauls who show up at conventions.

In today's society nice doesn't get you anything but disrespect - the common currency is now anger and menace. You either got some or you are prey. THIS is why Open Carry is so attractive.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . .

Yep, lots of this stuff got started (in the USA) after vets returned from WW2. These were vets who saw lots of combat action and these are also vets who sometimes decorated warplanes with personal art and such. Anyhow, they returned from WW2 and started groups like the Hell's Angels and such (I believe the Hell's Angels were started by vets?). Anyhow, returning from war and going back into every day life is not always easy and consequently things like riding motorcycles and creating hot rods and tinkering around with cars and bikes and tattoos and living what we now would refer to as an "alternative" lifestyle got its start in the late 40's and into the 50's.

 

[chopinbloc]

I would hate to have something like that in front of a jury in the event that I had to use it in self-defense!

We hear people say this garbage all the time. Maybe if you leave in some commie stink hole like CA, MA, or NJ, where you are going to be charged and indicted if you even hurt your attacker's feelings with harsh language, then you've really got a point. If you live in the sane parts of the union and you have to grease some dude in your own home, it is not likely to go to trial unless you do something really dumb like drag a body around or lie to the cops. If you act in a legal manner, superficial things like how scawy wooking that bwack gun is to a jury won't matter because you're not going to see a jury.


Oh, and that lower is freaking awesome and I don't care what people think. Gay rights didn't advance by people being quiet and not rocking the boat, it advanced by constant in-your-face "we're here, we're queer" advocacy, complete with giant phallus parades.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Maybe if you leave in some commie stink hole like CA, MA, or NJ, where you are going to be charged and indicted if you even hurt your attacker's feelings with harsh language, then you've really got a point....

So much ignorance in so few words. Just by way of example, there was --

• Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
  
  
• Mark Abshire in gun friendly Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
  
  
• Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
  
  
• Gerald Ung in Pennsylvania: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

...If you act in a legal manner, superficial things like how scawy wooking that bwack gun is to a jury won't matter because you're not going to see a jury....

Phooey! Whether or not you acted in a legal manner will not be your call. It will be decided after the fact by a prosecutor, perhaps a grand jury, and, if you're unlucky, the jury at your trial.

And with regard to juries, here's an interesting article by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer, on a study he did about how the type of gun used in a self defense incident could influence a jury. Dr. Meyer is a member here (GEM), a moderator over at TFL, and a resident of Texas. He spoke on this subject at a continuing education program entitled "What Every Texas Lawyer Needs to Know About Firearms Law 2013", which was put on by the Texas Bar Association.

And this article, "Reasonable Doubts About the Jury System" published in The Atlantic offers some interesting insights into jury perception and bias.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Oh, and that lower is freaking awesome and I don't care what people think. Gay rights didn't advance by people being quiet and not rocking the boat, it advanced by constant in-your-face "we're here, we're queer" advocacy, complete with giant phallus parades.

I used to subscribe to this argument. I was wrong, after being confronted with the truth that the in-your-face advocacy hurt the movement, almost destroyed it. It's been the logical, smart, non-invasive advocacy that started to overturn the laws created by the "we're here, we're queer" movement. I used that same argument for the open carry advocates in Texas. Their behavior almost killed the open carry legislation in that state, and as such, they ended up with crappy legislation that still requires permission from TX.gov.

In your face, abrasive, aggressive advocacy tends to hurt more than it helps, and can set back entire movements for decades. Texas got open carry despite "Tactical Grimace and Major Tapco, in the Chipotle incident", not because of it.


Not a lower I'd purchase, but I'd love to have it for a range toy and keep it in the safe along with the AR pistol and keep my plain jane post ban carbine for HD.

 

[evan price]

I've got more important things to worry about.

 

[GEM]

Thanks, Frank. We found that an adult sample in TX (not CA) had average negative views of the AR platform in an ambiguous home claim of self-defense.

Another study found that a hunting oriented population had negative views of 'assault weapons'. Now it depends on the individual but don't think living in a specific state or someone being a gun owner will protect you.

Gun friendly folk in another jury study were very negative towards incompetent gun handling in an SD simulated trial.

A small study by supposedly gun friendly police in Ohio found that they were more likely to arrest a person with an AR carried in an inappropriate manner in their car compared to other guns. The latter were given a warning, the AR folks would be arrested according to the law.

Having a skull AR - that's plan. Last but not least, let's say you are in the movie theatre with your kid. It's a showing of Batman - a person comes into the theory carrying a Skull AR. Aren't you getting ready to go to Condition Orange. If the gun goes off his shoulder - get up and Cheer for the RKBA!!

 

[wojownik]

So much ignorance in so few words. Just by way of example, there was --

• Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
  
  
• Mark Abshire in gun friendly Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
  
  
• Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
  
  
• Gerald Ung in Pennsylvania: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

Phooey! Whether or not you acted in a legal manner will not be your call. It will be decided after the fact by a prosecutor, perhaps a grand jury, and, if you're unlucky, the jury at your trial.

And with regard to juries, here's an interesting article by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer, on a study he did about how the type of gun used in a self defense incident could influence a jury. Dr. Meyer is a member here (GEM), a moderator over at TFL, and a resident of Texas. He spoke on this subject at a continuing education program entitled "What Every Texas Lawyer Needs to Know About Firearms Law 2013", which was put on by the Texas Bar Association.

And this article, "Reasonable Doubts About the Jury System" published in The Atlantic offers some interesting insights into jury perception and bias.

Thank you Frank for posting this important material. There is some really important background reading here - which may be a great illumination to those who opine there are no consequences from one's appearance ...

 

[Hypnogator]

For another example of the type of weapon influencing, if not driving, an indictment over what would otherwise have likely been a clear case of self-defense, see:

"F you and your high powered rifle!" The Gary Fadden incident - The Ayoob files American Handgunner, March-April, 2004 by Massad Ayoob

 

[ACP]

sheer, unadulterated stupidity.

it's the American way!

 

[Ed Ames]

And with regard to juries, here's an interesting article by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer, on a study he did about how the type of gun used in a self defense incident could influence a jury. Dr. Meyer is a member here (GEM), a moderator over at TFL, and a resident of Texas. He spoke on this subject at a continuing education program entitled "What Every Texas Lawyer Needs to Know About Firearms Law 2013", which was put on by the Texas Bar Association.

With apologizes to GEM, many of the studies he cites seem to be classical WEIRD psych results. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird.aspx) The relevance of those studies to the broader population, even assuming they were otherwise exemplary, is questionable. Beyond that, many were exceedingly old, dating back to the 1990s.

For a historical perspective you must consider that in 1990 many gun stores didn't sell AR/AK pattern rifles. Even in 2007 major "hunting oriented" gun retailers (e.g. Bass Pro Shops) didn't carry AR/AK pattern firearms. Today you would be hard pressed to find a gun store without at least a few modern sporting rifles. In markets like California the difference is even more stark...when I left in 2007 the number of AR-like rifles at stores was about 0. I remember a keltec su-16 or two but nothing like when I went back in 2011 and found the same shops had full walls of ARs. I cannot comment empirically on the extent of the shift, but I can say that studies from 20 years ago are likely to be misleading.

...
Another study found that a hunting oriented population had negative views of 'assault weapons'. Now it depends on the individual but don't think living in a specific state or someone being a gun owner will protect you.

Gun friendly folk in another jury study were very negative towards incompetent gun handling in an SD simulated trial.

A small study by supposedly gun friendly police in Ohio found that they were more likely to arrest a person with an AR carried in an inappropriate manner in their car compared to other guns. The latter were given a warning, the AR folks would be arrested according to the law.

Again, without knowing the age of these studies or more about the study subjects I can't judge the relevance. If they are more than 5 years old I would judge them with suspicion.

Having a skull AR - that's plan. ...

Wait...I would think a reasonable reading of your studies would be that a skull AR likely does not, "cast a negative or violent image of gun owners" because that image already exists for owners of all modern sporting rifles.

Seems like if your info is correct just owning an AR casts a negative or violent image, and the skull is just unquantifiable icing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

With apologizes to GEM, many of the studies he cites seem to be classical WEIRD psych results. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird.aspx) The relevance of those studies to the broader population, even assuming they were otherwise exemplary, is questionable. Beyond that, many were exceedingly old, dating back to the 1990s....

Well Ed, with apologies to you, I know that Glenn is a research psychologist. I don't know what you are, but your profile says you're an engineer. Glenn does this stuff for a living and publishes his work in professional journals where it is open to challenge by other professionals in the field.

All opinions aren't equal. If you want to effectively challenge Glenn's information, you need to come up with something more robust than your suppositions.

 

[Ed Ames]

The fact that you characterize WEIRD as "your supposition" says you should follow your own advice, Frank.

If Glenn thinks that studies of college and community college students isn't textbook WEIRD, he can defend that position far better than you can.

For a lay exposition of the topic: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...archers_rely_too_much_on_western_college.html

 

[taliv]

it would certainly seem reasonable to assume that with the obama sales of EBRs and the expiration of 90s era ban on evil looking mostly aesthetic features, that there may still be a negative bias, it is likely not as strong as it was.

who knows? hopefully GEM will respond to a reasonable request.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If Glenn thinks that studies of college and community college students isn't textbook WEIRD, he can defend that position far better than you can....

Only if you can do a better job of attacking it than relying on some "criticism" of a sex survey, obviously focusing primarily on its entertainment value, published without documentation or peer review, by some postdoc.

 

[Ed Ames]

Frank, you are assuming Glenn's position. That may or may not be valid. Let him speak for himself.

Considering that you are apparently unfamiliar with the WEIRD issue altogether, I really don't see what you are adding to the discussion except heat without knowledge.

 

[fastbolt]

Thank you GEM & Frank.

I'm unsurprised if some firearms enthusiasts are going to be resistant to considering the pervasive influence of firearms when it comes to the general public's perception of, and reaction to, acts of violence in our society.

Some folks might want to consider the possibility that as more bizarre and "threatening" firearms and related "gear" become more common, or even ubiquitous, in our modern society, there's the possibility of even more visceral reaction by the greater public.

People may put pictures of spiders on things as decoration and artwork ... and the comic book character Spiderman is obviously enjoying a lot of popularity, even in mainstream Movies ... but what's the typical reaction when someone finds a real creepy and scary looking spider on their wall or floor? Think a lot of folks are going to react to scary looking guns any differently, especially if confronted with them under circumstances beyond their control? (Think witnesses to a violent event, and jurors, maybe.)

Think skulls and other menacing pictures are going to be all that different? Cool art work, right? Until it's actually woven into an actual act of violence, instead of a fictional one. Like seeing a real spider on the wall near your face when you turn on the bathroom light in the middle of the night, maybe?

Not surprising the average person is going to consciously, or unconsciously, mentally "link" the menacing iconic symbol to the owner's/user's mental frame of mind, or even their intention in a particular set of circumstances.

Why create more work (and personal expense) for an attorney hired to represent your interests in any criminal investigation or court trial, or a civil trial?

Just look at how easily the public can be swayed by the appearance of "militarized police", or "use of force" issues being sensationalized in the media.

Want to buy a ticket for that ride? Might cost more than initially anticipated, in the long run, under the wrong circumstances.

I like skulls, BTW. I have some pewter skull beads woven onto the leather ties of one of my leather riding jackets (which isn't a stereotypical "biker" jacket as might be portrayed in some circumstances).

Why? I like a little modern art, too. Long time sword & sorcery and fantasy fan. My grand daughter loves the stone & crystal skulls, and dragons, I've collected over the years. (I have some very old hand stitched embroidered dragon & crane framed art, too.)

Not going to find skulls on any of my firearms or commonly carried blades, though.

Nor zombies.

Nor 'space Marines' or "ET/alien invaders), etc.

Perception can become so close to reality that it may make it hard to differentiate, at times (and under the wrong, or at least inopportune, circumstances).

Predictable can be preventable.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Considering that you are apparently unfamiliar with the WEIRD issue altogether, I really don't see what you are adding to the discussion except heat without knowledge.

I can, however, assess the relevance of the "evidence" you cited to support your supposition that there were defects in the samples upon which Dr. Meyer relied in his study.

The article you linked in post 89 appeared in a general information/entertainment oriented on-line magazine. It is entitled, "Psychology Is WEIRD, Western college students are not the best representatives of human emotion, behavior, and sexuality." It is critical of a specific study on a specific human sexuality issue.

But a focus of the criticism in the Slate article is that using U.S. college students for psychological studies is distorting, because U.S. college students aren't necessarily representative of the human species.

However, Dr. Meyer's focus in his study was the behavior and attitudes of United States residents serving on juries in trials conducted in the United States.

 

[Ed Ames]

Frank, if you are going to "assess evidence" why not follow the link I sent to Glenn's attention in post 87? Published by the American Psychological Association.

However, since you enjoy tilting at lay expositions, I'll wave another in front of you:
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-cult...um-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135

My assessment that there could be defects came from GEM posting that they used college and community college students in Texas for the studies. Why do you assume that college students are representative of the US population, or potential jury pool, when psychologists recognize a problem with that assumption?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, if you are going to "assess evidence" why not follow the link I sent to Glenn's attention in post 87? Published by the American Psychological Association.

However, since you enjoy tilting at lay expositions, I'll wave another in front of you:
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-cult...um-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135....

Which relates to the point I raised here:

....But a focus of the criticism in the Slate article is that using U.S. college students for psychological studies is distorting, because U.S. college students aren't necessarily representative of the human species.

However, Dr. Meyer's focus in his study was the behavior and attitudes of United States residents serving on juries in trials conducted in the United States.

...My assessment that there could be defects came from GEM posting that they used college and community college students in Texas for the studies...

Which is an issue not addressed in the authorities you cited.

On the other hand, it is a reasonable question for peer review in an academic journal, and the Journal of Applied Social Psychology in which Dr. Meyer's study was published is a peer reviewed academic journal.

 

[GEM]

The participants were from TX college students and community college students who were older working class folks. The TX kids are pretty typical intelligent Texans - perhaps that is a weird sample? Lots of the kids are pretty progun.

Overall metaanalysis of the methods show that these samples have ecological validity and are not weird samples. There's a reference to this in the papers. The work was done in recent times, mid 2000's for a 2009 paper.

Of course, it's one's choice to believe or challenge or not. However, having given a presentation of the results to about 180 TX lawyers for the Texas Bar CLE, none of them were aghast and thought it to be dismissed. They are the on the front line users of such.

BTW, would a sample of kids from Boston or NYC totally democratic colleges be on your side? We did this is an gun friendly state.

 

[Ed Ames]

Which relates to the point I raised here:

​

So your reason for believing WEIRD doesn't apply is that you think Glenn studied jurors, not college students?

From the article you linked to:

"Mock jurors were drawn from two separate populations: college students at Trinity University – a liberal arts college in San Antonio, Texas; or community college students at the Alamo Community College, also in San Antonio, Texas.*"

As far as I can tell, some or all of Glenn's results come from treating college students as representative of jurors. Ergo they are WEIRD results.

The WEIRD issue in psychology is fairly recent. If the paper you cited was from before 2010 it would not have addressed the WEIRD issue at all. Even today professionals in those fields are struggling to understand and adjust to the implications.

From a lay perspective the safest response is to assume all published psychology and economics papers apply only to American undergrads, unless evidence to the contrary is provided.

Consider this: http://news.nd.edu/news/29684-holding-a-gun-makes-you-think-others-are-too-new-research-shows/
Does it say they selected a broad study group? No. That means it is WEIRD until evidence to the contrary is provided. The title should be "holding a gun makes undergrads at University of Notre Dame think others are too".

 

[GEM]

People cannot study real jurors in process easily. Thus mock juror methods have to be used. This escapes you.

As I said before, there have been analyses of the using mock jurors from colleges and other populations and results have been similar.

In our study, we got the same results from the liberal arts college (and that does not mean 'liberal' - is it a school classification from older times) and from an older working population (that happened to be going to night school).

Very different groups. But keeping typing WEIRD if it makes you happy and have your lawyer not be aware of jury selection and presentation issues.

 

[Ed Ames]

GEM, unless you can prove comments like "this escapes you", they speak only to your emotionality and have zero bearing on me. As an academic you should know better. It is clear you wish for uncivil discourse, but I refuse to engage at that level.

Since you address WEIRD only with a non sequitur, and did not address the age of the studies at all, I consider my question answered.