What is the psychology of anti-gun people?

[iliketoshootguns]

What do you think is the psychology of anti-gun people. For instance, what is going through the mind of San Francisco lefties when they try to impose a citywide ban on legal gun ownership, while at the same time pushing for softer crime enforcement. It is almost as if every thing they believe in is the opposite of logic and reason.

I was doing some research on political ideologies, personality types, and their psychological primers, and I found that modern day radical leftism is closely tied to masochism (deriving pleasure in self punishment, willingness to subject oneself to trying experiences) and low self esteem. This is not a blanket statment as there are many grey areas, libertarians, progun leftists, etc.. but is just a general observation.

I am curious as to how these antis become masochists? Is it childhood upbringing, mental illness, pure ignorance? What is your opinion?

[ABTOMAT]

I'm not much into psychology, but I always assumed it's because guns are a concrete physical object they can go after, rather than saying there's a greater problem with society and the attitudes/standards/morals/whatever of many people. I also don't think this is a "liberal" attitude either. It just manifests itself differently depending on one's world views.

[gunsmith]

Had a good article about this subject called "Raging against self defense"
Having lived in SF I find the anti's to be generally more violent then most
gunnies, the "secret" reason is they know that they would fly off
the handle and kill because of a minor traffic incident.
The person most likely to give you the finger in traffic is the liberal
anti gun person.....Also, yes, they're quite stupid too.

I tried to explain to a college student that despite the mike moore propaganda
that the NRA & KKK are not the same org, but he didn't know the Confederacy from the Union!

I asked a college student from Richmond, Virgingia if they knew the diffference
between the Confederacy and the Union...nope!

But she knew that "guns kill people":banghead:

[Dbl0Kevin]

I've done a lot of thinking on this subject and I think that when it comes to anti-gun people there are several different brands.

The first kind are the ignorant anti's who, like most people, go about their life with blinders on and if they don't have an interest in something they don't bother to educate themselves. These are the people that will catch a news story once in a while and fall hook, line and sinker about how guns are more likely to be taken from you and used against you in an attack, or that you're more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder etc. Some of these people MAY be able to be converted if they have an open mind and are shown the truth.

The second kind of anti is the person that, for whatever reason, feels they are not competant to hande a firearm in self defense. They then transfer those feelings of incompetancy to others because, obviously in their mind, if they can't do something than no one else could possibly be able to either. This is also related to ignorance where people don't understand that not everyone thinks, acts, and has the same abilities as they do.

The third type of anti is the one that feels THEY are perfectly able to be trusted with a firearm and could use one successfully and safely, however, they think the rest of the peons around them are all bumbling idiots and cannot be trusted to do the same. Ergo Diane Feinstein who has a CCW permit but will not support anyone else's right to do the same and has never met a piece of gun control she didn't like. These are the hardcore leftists that feel they know what is best for everyone else, and if we don't want to listen to them, well by God they'll make us listen....for our own good of course.

The fourth type of anti is the totally irrational person who, again for whatever reason, has a strange phobia of inanimate objects. These are the people that I find particularly frustrating as no matter how much you prove them wrong they just won't see it. They feel that the gun is dangerous irregardless of the person who uses it. These are the people you hear about trembling in fear from the simple sight of a firearm such as other people get dizzy and scared when looking off of a high cliff. These people can sometimes overcome their phobias IF they actively wish to and work towards it.

[Baba Louie]

I'd add the following to DblOKevin's list:

There are those that are innocently ignorant and can be taught.

There are those who know that their self control is limited and who have stated that they would use a firearm in a fit of rage, thus, you should not own one as well.

There are those who's lives have been horribly and negatively affected by firearms used against either themselves or a loved one, thus ALL guns should be banned.

There are those in power (and criminal types as well) who know that they might be used against them due to human nature, as Mao so aptly put it, "All power flows from the barrel of a gun".

There are those who live their lives in fear and only depend on others to protect them.

[Chipperman]

Another type is the ultimate pacifist.

I worked with one of these a few years ago. She said she would rather die than take the life of another person; even if that person were about to murder both herself and her husband. :scrutiny:

She had no fear of guns or other weapons per se, just the use of them in violent actions.

[Deanimator]

In my experience a lot of anti-gunners live in a fantasy world where 110lb. women can whip 210lb. rapists the way Xena does, 911 never makes a mistake, the police come via transporter, and you can trust to the discretion and judgement of a meth addicted two time loser who knows he's looking at life without parole if you ID him.

It reminds me of my mother who tried to make me drink at a wedding when I was in the Army. I told her that I'd get pitched out of the Army if I got a DUI. She just steadfastly told me that they couldn't do that... despite my naming the roster of my messhall cooks that we'd discharged for DUI in the past two years.

Anti-gunners by and large hate unpleasant reality and ignore it at all cost. 14,000 years ago, people like that got eaten by something before they could taint the gene pool.

[Fosbery]

I find a number of different things or a combination of them make people support keeping gun laws tough or even toughening them in the UK:

They do not trust themselves and/or others with firearms. They often believe firearms for self defence is a good idea, but also that they/others will tend to shoot people when it is unwarranted (over silly arguments etc) and that there will be accidents and people will get hurt or killed. I don't deny that a few people might get killed where they might not have done without firearms, but I believe the lives saved through self defence, the security of an armed citizenry and the freedom to enjoy the sport of shooting is worth that price.

They believe that firearms are unnescessary. Martial arts, running away and less lethal weapons such as pepper spray will do the job of self defence just as well, without costing lives. I disagree completely, as many people cannot use the above methods at all/effectively and even the most skilled and physically able user still has a high probabiliyu of failiure. Also, these ideas do not protect a people from their government.

They believe that criminals will use firearms in crime more. I disagree, criminals will not use legal guns as they will be registered (I believe in registration. Ok, it can lead to confiscation and restriction, but we just have to make sure it dosn't) and can be traced. Illegal guns exist and always will. They may become slightly cheaper as legal guns are stolen, but in the end I'd rather face two criminals with guns, and have a gun myself, than face two criminals, one with a gun and one with a knife, and be unarmed myself.

I do not believe that your average anti seriously wants to 'let rapists have their way with women' or 'make sure the government can opress the people' or anything like that. This is just the consequence of their beliefs. However, I do believe that politicians have the agenda of disarming the people to make themselves more secure (and also because it gets votes from antis).

[Cesiumsponge]

Many ideas and beliefs (political, social, religious, etc) are indoctrinated during childhood and youth. It's very difficult to change your belief system after it's been ingrained into you all your life, even if someone tries to sit down and have a discussion.

It usually ends up in frustration. I'm sure you've all had experience where you tried to discuss politics, religion, society, and other "big topics" to someone with differing opinion, or someone trying to discuss conflicting beliefs with you. Its usually difficult to change someone's mind, or even allow the possibility of thinking other alternatives over.

...and ignorance is everywhere. No particular group is immune or less afflicted with it. You'll find ignorance in every facet of belief and society.

Quite frankly, cities that pass restrictive or bans on firearm categories will serve as statistical examples to the rest of the country of what happens when civilians can no longer purchase the tools in which to safekeep themselves and their loved ones while those who never followed the laws to begin with can continue to aquire such tools to cause harm and mayhem.

[SiG Lady]

...It's all about IGNORANCE. Plain and simple. :banghead:

"14,000 years ago, people like that got eaten by something before they could taint the gene pool."Yeh, and a whole lotta that, too!!

[Zundfolge]

In the spirit of DblOKevin's list, I have long held that those who support gun control fall into three primary groups (arranged by order of size ... largest first)

The Duped: These are the rank and file antis that believe the lies and distortions told by the other two groups. They believe that gun control will make them safer ... these are the people we can "convert" as long as they are willing to accept logic, reason and the truth. I believe the vast majority of those who say they support gun control are in this group.

The Partisans: There are a lot in this group who are also part of The Duped but basically these people are anti gun because they are Democrats or just plain Liberals ... they really know nothing about the gun debate nor do they care ... they just oppose gun ownership because their political allies do (and their political enemies support gun ownership).

The Power Seekers: These are the people who want to disarm us because they want to make it easier to enslave us ... this is a very small number of people (maybe just a few dozen to a few hundred) but they are the heads of the gun control movement and some of the politicians who push gun control bills (Feinstein and Schummer are probably among this group). These are the people who originate the lies and feed them to the two other groups. These are the people who must be destroyed (at least politically if not physically).

[iliketoshootguns]

Zundfolge, that is a very good assessment

[SiG Lady]

I've had a chat or two about my guns with a couple of apparently "duped" types, and lo-n-behold, they LISTENED! And they went away CHANGED! Ignorance is among us, but occasionally it just needs a shove aside, allowing for unencumbered dialogue. Sometimes. And those "sometimes" are rather gratifying.:cool:

[orangelo]

Cowardice.

Either afraid of what they would do if they were allowed to own guns. Or what their neighbor might do if he were allowed to own guns. Afraid of what Jamal might do if he were allowed to own a gun. That's all there is to it.

[Soybomb]

A few years ago I would have been neutral to lightly anti. I grew up in a family that had no involvement with firearms. The gun owners I knew were the typical redneck hunter stereotype. You'd occassionally hear someone talking about overthrowing the government to justify their right to guns and usually if you tried to have a discussion it would turn into a rather uneducated explosion sounding something like "ain't nobody gonna take my mf'in guns." Add in some false and misleading statistics from the anti-gun lobby and viola, instant anti. Afterall if most of society is dumb, how can it be a good idea to let them run around armed. I simply didn't care enough to put much research into my stance. I don't have any, logic says its a bad idea, statistics show its a bad idea, case closed.

Then some years later I learned I wasn't quite the invincible youth I had thought of myself as and realized sometimes you're all you've got. I feel like I did quite a bit of research and found out that my guesses were wrong and many of the statistics I had heard were very flawed and many issues talked about were based on missinformation or lies.

I really think alot of these people just don't care to educate themselves past listening that if you own a handgun you're 43 more likely to die from it. I think the solution is education. Don't jump right in to the violent overthrow of the us government. Don't get violently angry and obscene, try to keep your discussions civil and scholarly. Talk about real world possibilities like rape, crazy people in public, disasters like katrina and I think you'll find people are at least willing to listen. Most importantly take people who are inexperienced out shooting. Let them see that gun owners are very concerned about safety and that the stereotypical people they imagine they will see at the range probably won't actually be there. Let them shoot a little and see that the gun isn't going to go off on its own and isn't hard to operate. Let them see if nothing else target shooting is actually a fun sport.

Not everyone has grown up with guns and many people have no information past what they read in the newspaper. If you don't turn into a "gun nut" I think a surprising number of people will listen to what you have to say. If you say "well you're just afraid of guns, you coward" you're probably not going to get anywhere.

[biere]

If the ignorance examples do not cover it then it comes down to someone either wanting to have power over others or someone wanting to take power from others.

Therefore I pretty much explain it by ignorance and power these days.

I have decided I will never understand them and while I am happy to have a discussion on the subject it tends to so quickly become an attack from their side that there is no room for education or anything else.

And really that is part of the problem, they don't just believe they are right they believe there is no room for any other thoughts on the subject so everyone else MUST be wrong.

Best thing I ever did in life is get a real education and realize that there are many sides to all topics and it is nearly impossable to be an expert about all things. So study things, learn about them, talk about them, seek out others who have knowledge on the subject, and keep an open mind as you learn about things so that you truly are learning and not trying to arm yourself with statistics that support your side.

[foob]

Generalizations are bad. Absolutes are bad too.

Instead of asking pro-gun people to speculate what makes anti-gun people tick, why not go ask anti-gun people yourself...

[dch1978]

Yesterday I read some 300 posts to a guy that was linked on http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/.

His argument was that him being a total nerd, he would not be able to leave the gun alone and not being familiar with the proper safety operations would probably shoot someone. At the end he stated something to the effect that he did not believe that he was responsible enough to handle it, but did state that others should be allowed to own and take full responsibility for the safe handling of the weapon.

Many of the comments were the usual liberal spew, some were not, and of course the troller(pro-gun). The troller was constantly taking to task anyone who would debate courteously with him. Made for good reading.

The best quotes show the disconnect between the sides and I actually did fall out of my chair from the brilliance shown in an otherwise liberal post. It went something to the effect...

"Yeah, but I will never forgive Hillary for her illegal support of this illegal war by this illegal Bushco/Haliburton administration. There is nothing she WON'T do to stay in power."

The next was a lady that said it all about growing up in context.

"When you say 'gun' to urban white liberal, we instantly think black gangbangers selling drugs. Say that to a rural person and they think hunting, that great dog, and friends after the hunt. Racism is not confined to a political party."

Neither quote is exact, but the sentiment is intact.

I thought there was well written and thought out post by people on both sides. Some of the remarks by the anti's had real insight into the criminal problems, some were just bitter and hateful.

If you follow the link, there is some harsh language in the debate, also thoughts that may make you pull your hair, and even some where you will rejoice out loud.

Basically no one can be pigeonholed, there is just as much disagreement on the left as there is on the right.

DCH

[TallPine]

masochists in san francisco ...? :confused:

who woulda thunk it ? :p ;)

[JesseJames]

I think it's just plain ignorance.
And perhaps a smidgen of prejudice.

There's misinformation, disinformation, and cherry picking on both sides.

[JBusch8899]

Waaaaaaaaaaaah. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Wah, wah, wah. Sniff. Sniff.

They want their way anyway they can have it. Its a 3 year old psychology.

[Deanimator]

Instead of asking pro-gun people to speculate what makes anti-gun people tick, why not go ask anti-gun people yourself...
I've been doing that for twenty years, in FidoNet and usenet.

Frequently, they lie.

The biggest lie is, "I'm afraid of guns." What they all too frequently mean is "I'm afraid of Black people/Mexicans/Puerto Ricans/Laotians/etc. with guns." The racism in the anti-gun movement is so thick, it takes a chainsaw to cut it.

All too many of them are nihilists, misanthropes, and misogynists. They LIKE it when people are victimized. It gives them a vicarious thrill. This is especially so when it comes to rape. They don't mind if a woman resists, so long as she doesn't resist effectively, and doesn't seriously endanger the rapist. I've had English anti-gunners tell me that women shouldn't be allowed to have guns because they're "afraid they'll be mistaken for a rapist". My reply was:

1. How do you conduct yourself around women that you make a convincing model of a rapist?

2. Put down that butcher knife, pull up your pants, and nobody will "mistake" you for a rapist.

[tellner]

Hmm, a bunch of self-serving "They're all icky. We're cool."

There are as many reasons for people being anti as there are for them being pro. Not all of them are character defects any more than our reasons for being on the other side.

[mountainclmbr]

I kind of think it is "ICKY" the way the anti's think. They could easily have their utopia tomorrow by moving to Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea and many other places. But, they don't want to achieve utopia for them selves. They seem to want freedom to be denied to those who want it. It seems to me that they want everyone dragged down to the lowest common denominator, but ruled by the leftist elites.

[sfhogman]

I think Julia Gorin's got a hand on part of the problem, at least...
http://www.gunowners.org/wv36.htm

She's a Russian immigrant who grew up in a world without a Bill of Rights.
Good writer, too.

Jeff

[Zedicus]

gunsmith:
Had a good article about this subject called "Raging against self defense"
Having lived in SF I find the anti's to be generally more violent then most
gunnies, the "secret" reason is they know that they would fly off
the handle and kill because of a minor traffic incident.
The person most likely to give you the finger in traffic is the liberal
anti gun person.....Also, yes, they're quite stupid too.

Many of the British are almost exactly the same, as an example, look in the UK media for "Road Rage", they are well known for flying off the handle to an extreme over petty things as insignificant as stopping to quickly...

[Mr.V.]

All too many of them are nihilists, misanthropes, and misogynists. They LIKE it when people are victimized. It gives them a vicarious thrill. This is especially so when it comes to rape...

I don't think so.

You maybe pegged the 10 or so anti-gunners who idolize Alex de Large but for the vast majority the reason is quite simple. They don't want to die. They also don't have guns. Everything stems from those two reasons. They don't know how to use guns. They don't know how they work. They don't know fact vs fiction.

So when many of them hear the fact that "there are ~29,000 firearm caused deaths in the US each year and most of those guns were bought in stores..." the immediate solution is to get rid of firearms. Many say to themselves, "Guns are dangerous, why does anyone else need them except to rob people and banks? There's certainly no tyranny that I can see now! People who own guns are pretty much either criminals or Timothy McVeigh branch Davidians who live on Ruby Ridge crazy people."

Sure you know to subtract the number of suicides from the "facts" And you probably also want to argue that even if you eliminated every store that legally sold firearms you could hardly expect that the number of illegal guns wouldn't skyrocket...just look at cocaine, methamphetaime, heroine...etc etc.

But again, many of them are thinking in the immediate, and from the perspective of fear and ignorance of firearms. That's the source of *most* anti-gun mentality. I REALLY don't think it's a perverse love of being raped to death.

[Diamondback6]

I'd say, as an "Applied Psych" student, that another part of it is how people deal with all the little things out there every day that can kill you. Many hoplophobes are "ostriches"--they react by "burying head in the sand", going into full denial mode: "It can't happen to me. That doesn't happen around here. Nobody around here would do that. And if it does, the police will protect me."

We, on the other hand, draw reassurance against those evils from the knowledge that, even though the odds of any one of those things happening to any one of us are very low (depending on AO and lifestyle), just in case it DOES happen, we have a plan ready to go and the tools required to implement said plan available to us.

Just a thought, worth exactly what you paid for it...

[tellner]

That's just it, isn't it? A whole catalog of pathological character traits. They have them, but of course superior beings like us do not. Anyone who disagrees with us is, thus insane or childish and therefore need not be given the credence that people like us deserve.

[Diamondback6]

Tellner, please note: I said "many", NOT "all". Denial is a common pattern of behavior among most people, just that different people have it in different areas. It's also the first and hardest stage of dealing with the unpleasantries of reality. Eventually, most get past it, move into the next stage ("acceptance"), and then move forward from there to get on with their lives in most areas.

Also, when I referred to us CCW/High Roaders, I was generalizing, saying it was a trend, NOT a universal condition. Question for all of us: "What if the balloon goes up and you choke?" How many of us here will play ostrich and say "it can't happen to me..."? Comparatively, how many have trained and conditioned in case of a 'choke', and have a plan in case you're caught behind the 8-ball?

I've known many people who weren't CCW, who had valid reasons for their positions and I've never thought ill of them for it--besides, it gives me a kind of "job security" when I'm around them, since I then become the designated "first responder". It could also be said to a degree that some if not many of us are "compulsively self-reliant"... Not that it's a bad thing...

Give it enough time, and you can classify almost anybody's quirks as some 'diagnosable condition'. What I look for isn't so much a label, as the patterns of behavior any given condition can lead to, and therefore what the best probability is to expect from the subject in action.

[sterling180]

1996: Handguns to be banned in the UK
The British Government has announced plans to outlaw almost all handguns following the shocking massacre at Dunblane in Scotland.
On 13 March Thomas Hamilton walked into the gym at Dunblane primary school and killed 16 young children and their teacher. He also injured 13 other children and three teachers. Hamilton, a former scout master, then shot himself.

Today's announcement follows publication of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the massacre which concluded Hamilton's horrific attack could not have been predicted.

But it made 23 recommendations to tighten rules on gun ownership and monitor those who work with children.

The proposal to ban all handguns - except .22-caliber target pistols - would leave Britain with some of the toughest laws on private possession of guns.


Isn't it time to conclude that, literally and metaphorically, the game is up for handguns now?


Tory MP David Mellor

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39346000/jpg/_39346691_hanguns238.jpg


Home Secretary Michael Howard told a packed House of Commons he would make sure the measures were passed as quickly as possible through parliament.

But the move has angered both those for and against private gun ownership.

The Snowdrop Campaign, set up by victims' families after Dunblane, wants to see a total ban on handguns and called the plan an "unacceptable compromise".

The opposition Labour Party welcomed the report and the government's swift reaction to it but urged ministers to bring about a complete ban.

Shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw said politicians should have acted in a similar vein nine years ago after the Hungerford massacre.

Former Tory cabinet minister David Mellor also felt the proposals did not go far enough.

He asked: "Isn't it time to conclude that, literally and metaphorically, the game is up for handguns now?"

But gun club owners warned thousands of jobs would be in jeopardy if the proposal became law.

Speaking to the Daily Mirror newspaper, Ross Armstrong, owner of Medway Shooting Club in Kent said: "People are killed by drunk drivers but no-one demands a ban on cars. Further restrictions suit no-one."


A decade on,the ban has not been successful for anyone-other than the gun-grabbers,so this only aimed to reassure the paranoid anties,that we were completely disarmed of our treasured handguns-and that we were considered selfish,if we didn't disarm,because of Dunblane.:cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead:

I thought the UK Tory government were on drugs when I first heard about that pointless,pathetic ban.

David Mellor is a total moron anyway,he should have kept his mouth shut about banning handguns. Go back to doing what you do best,in a luxury Chelsea appartment,with anything that would want you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dbl0Kevin]

That's just it, isn't it? A whole catalog of pathological character traits. They have them, but of course superior beings like us do not. Anyone who disagrees with us is, thus insane or childish and therefore need not be given the credence that people like us deserve.

Well if we look at it logically that pretty much IS just it. As I, and several others have stated, there isn't just ONE reason people are anti gun and we have listed several of them. I don't believe anyone referred to us as "superior" in this discussion. The fact remains, however, that we look at the subject using logic and reason whereas the great majority of the antis, exepct for the ones who want us disarmed for their own power, do not.

If there were a group of people out there who did not like cars, but instead of just not driving they were pushing for cars to be banned from everyone you don't think they would be thought a little wierd?

That see is the issue with anti's vs. us. We just want to be able to have our guns and be left alone. We don't really care if they choose to have, or use a firearm at all.....that is THEIR decision. They on the other hand, want to make OUR decision for us and say that WE can't have guns because THEY don't like them. That's pretty childish or a pathological character trait if you ask me.

[Fosbery]

Wow,just reading that article gets me fired up all over again. Couldn't have been predicted??? Is that why Hamilton's gun club, fellow shooters and parents of the children in his scout group all expressed to the police that he was unsuitable to hold a firearms certificate, yet nothing was done? :banghead: An unacceptable compromise??? How many people in the history of the UK have been killed by .22 rimfire ammunition? Maybe one, if that, I reckon. Idiots.

[Deanimator]

I don't think so.

You maybe pegged the 10 or so anti-gunners who idolize Alex de Large but for the vast majority the reason is quite simple. They don't want to die. They also don't have guns. Everything stems from those two reasons. They don't know how to use guns. They don't know how they work. They don't know fact vs fiction.
Here's an experiment you can try:

Read usenet talk.politics.guns for thirty days. Don't read everything, just whatever attracts your attention. You'll see what the anti-gunners don't dare show you on "60 Minutes" or "Good Morning America".

[lionking]

some equate a firearm with violence and cant see past that,even with self defense.I believe and hope for peace,wish their was no such thing as war or violent crime but I do not subscribe to the thought of "peace at all costs".
I remember hearing Bill Clinton at a public debate after Columbine were he stated "I just want this country to be a safe one".A good intension but a misleading one because there is nothing safe about being free.It seems some are willing to trade freedom for a "sense of security" which is just wrong.
ANY leader or citizen that wants this country to be safe,will uphold the Bill of Rights including the right to bear arms.
Tragic when someone is hurt or killed in a crime,but history has shown that a criminal government can be the most murderous of all,usually with intent of making everything "safe".

[RealGun]

That see is the issue with anti's vs. us. We just want to be able to have our guns and be left alone. We don't really care if they choose to have, or use a firearm at all.....that is THEIR decision. They on the other hand, want to make OUR decision for us and say that WE can't have guns because THEY don't like them. That's pretty childish or a pathological character trait if you ask me.

But when the issue is morality, the table turns, and the tyrant or nutjob hat is passed to the other side.

[Mayo]

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

[Dbl0Kevin]

But when the issue is morality, the table turns, and the tyrant or nutjob hat is passed to the other side.

You my friend have hit the nail right on the head and brought up my main contention with most "conservatives" and Republicans. While I side with them on issues such as gun rights and foreign policy I don't agree at all with their "moral crusade".

I believe in personal choice across the board which includes abortion, sex before marriage, stem cell research, watching violent movies or playing violent video games. It always amazes me the extent of both parties claiming to be the defender of individual liberties when in reality it's only those liberties that they approve of.

[tellner]

Or try another experiment. Sound out your acquaintances, coworkers and family members who don't wear "Molon Labe" t-shirts or cover their Hummers screaming eagles in red, white and blue. You'll find that they are no less sane than anyone here, and a lot more tightly wound than, well, about half the general population.

[Zundfolge]

I forgot I'd done a revision of my theory here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=179211) (adding a 4th group)

The Duped: The majority of people who say they support gun control or vote for anti-gun candidates ... these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement. They honestly believe that gun control would make us safer. There is hope to turn these people to the truth as they are just lied too and not committed to believing the lies because of other personal reasons like groups 2 & 3 (and they are by far the largest group).

The Partisans: They are Democrats/liberals/progressives ... and their party says "guns are bad"...or more to the point "those who support gun rights are our enemy" so they support gun control and vote for anti gun candidates. These people are pretty much unreachable unless Republicans became pro gun control. Most could care less one way or the other whether guns are legal, illegal, restricted, or whatever (although most are partially duped and I'm sure there are plenty Hoplolphobes among them too).

The Hopolophobes: just simply people with an irrational fear of guns ... they are unreachable. Therapy for their phobia is required. (this is a somewhat small group ... smaller than 1 and 2).

The Power Seekers: These are the Schumers and Feinsteins ... these are the leaders of the movement who know guns aren't bad but know they can't implement their other diabolical plans against us as long as we're armed (this is actually a very small group ... even most anti-gun politicians are just Partisans and/or Hopolophobes, only a very select few are trying to enslave us).

[foob]

Zundfolge, it is foolish to believe that all anti-gun people are wrong.

It is only a belief (with a lot of cherry-picked evidence on either side) that firearms (or no firearms) makes the community safer (or more dangerous).

One must always keep an open mind, that there are situations where the absence of firearms is safer. If that wasn't true, then you should be campaigning to bring guns into schools, courthouses, and government buildings. As with any matter, it is a tradeoff issue where usually neither side is wrong.

I believe because of the history of the US, where firearm ownership is prevalent, and since it is not possible to get rid of firearms in the hands of criminals, that there is a necessary need for everybody else to carry too. But I can't see into the future, maybe one day there will be no such need.

[Dbl0Kevin]

Zundfolge, it is foolish to believe that all anti-gun people are wrong.

It is only a belief (with a lot of cherry-picked evidence on either side) that firearms (or no firearms) makes the community safer (or more dangerous).


Here is where you make your mistake. Sure it's great to have debates about whether or not guns = safer society in the large equation. It may also make for interesting conversation and possibly a way to start a conversion of someone who does not like guns.

BUT the bottom line is I really don't care whether statistically or not firearms make the COMMUNITY safer or not. I do KNOW for a fact that I am much more well prepared when *I* have a firearm. Hence the part about PERSONAL choice. I don't think any pro-gun person is saying that a gun is the best tool for EVERYONE to use, some just aren't good shots and like has been pointed out some just are plain afraid of them. If you don't feel that you could personally use a firearm in a defensive situation for whatever reason then it's not a good decision for you to have one. That is YOUR decision, however.

The anti-gun people, however, DO want a one-size-fits-all approach and because THEY do not wish to employ a gun for their own use feel that no one else should be able to either. That most certainly IS wrong.

One must always keep an open mind, that there are situations where the absence of firearms is safer. If that wasn't true, then you should be campaigning to bring guns into schools, courthouses, and government buildings. As with any matter, it is a tradeoff issue where usually neither side is wrong.


I don't follow this line of thinking at all. If I find that I am better prepared to defend myself in my home, my car, or in public with a firearm why would it be safer NOT to have one in a school, courthouse, or govt. building? Do you think that it's ok for someone to have a gun in wal-mart but once that person enters a school there is a danger of him or her becoming a mass muderer?

[Deanimator]

Or try another experiment. Sound out your acquaintances, coworkers and family members who don't wear "Molon Labe" t-shirts or cover their Hummers screaming eagles in red, white and blue. You'll find that they are no less sane than anyone here, and a lot more tightly wound than, well, about half the general population.
1. I rule a lot of my family members out when it comes to sanity and tightness of winding. They largely live by choice in Chicago. That in itself is a sign of disordered thinking.
2. All of my friends value their lives and the lives of their relatives and friends above those of robbers, rapists and murderers. If they didn't, they wouldn't be my friends.

[foob]

I don't follow this line of thinking at all. If I find that I am better prepared to defend myself in my home, my car, or in public with a firearm why would it be safer NOT to have one in a school, courthouse, or govt. building? Do you think that it's ok for someone to have a gun in wal-mart but once that person enters a school there is a danger of him or her becoming a mass muderer?

No what I'm saying is that if pro-guns are adamant that there is a need to carry everywhere, then why don't I see the NRA and other gun lobbyists lobby the governments to allow carry in schools, government buildings, and on airplanes?

So I'm saying there are situations where the absence of guns is accepted by pro-guns and anti-guns alike.

[Deanimator]

I believe because of the history of the US, where firearm ownership is prevalent, and since it is not possible to get rid of firearms in the hands of criminals, that there is a necessary need for everybody else to carry too. But I can't see into the future, maybe one day there will be no such need.
When will there ever be a need for 110lb. women to fistfight with 210lb. rapists? When will there ever be a need for me to fight somebody with a butcher knife with my bare hands?

[foob]

Here is where you make your mistake. Sure it's great to have debates about whether or not guns = safer society in the large equation. It may also make for interesting conversation and possibly a way to start a conversion of someone who does not like guns.

BUT the bottom line is I really don't care whether statistically or not firearms make the COMMUNITY safer or not. I do KNOW for a fact that I am much more well prepared when *I* have a firearm. Hence the part about PERSONAL choice. I don't think any pro-gun person is saying that a gun is the best tool for EVERYONE to use, some just aren't good shots and like has been pointed out some just are plain afraid of them. If you don't feel that you could personally use a firearm in a defensive situation for whatever reason then it's not a good decision for you to have one. That is YOUR decision, however.

The anti-gun people, however, DO want a one-size-fits-all approach and because THEY do not wish to employ a gun for their own use feel that no one else should be able to either. That most certainly IS wrong.

I'm answering Zundfolge's post regarding the type of people called "The Duped", who believe that gun control makes them safer.

He's saying anti-gun people believe gun control makes them safer, and that is a wrong belief. I'm just saying that we don't know whether that belief is wrong, I'm not saying anything about you or your beliefs that carrying makes you safer. :banghead:

[Dbl0Kevin]

No what I'm saying is that if pro-guns are adamant that there is a need to carry everywhere, then why don't I see the NRA and other gun lobbyists lobby the governments to allow carry in schools, government buildings, and on airplanes?

So I'm saying there are situations where the absence of guns is accepted by pro-guns and anti-guns alike.

No it has nothing to do with pro-guns agreeing with it. It has EVERYTHING to do with picking your battles. Believe me if it were possible to whittle away at places off limits to carry then we would do it. In fact this actually is happening at the state level where a lot of states are reducing restrictions on CCW permits.

[Dbl0Kevin]

I'm answering Zundfolge's post regarding the type of people called "The Duped", who believe that gun control makes them safer.

He's saying anti-gun people believe gun control makes them safer, and that is a wrong belief. I'm just saying that we don't know whether that belief is wrong, I'm not saying anything about you or your beliefs that carrying makes you safer.

He also listed several other reasons why people would be anti-gun. Nowhere did he say that the duped represented every person that is an anti.....just most of them as definately seems to be the case.

In fact his list is strikingly similar to the one I posted earlier in this thread. We both arrived at these conclusions on our own and I would be interested in you providing something that conflicts.

I think that logic and reason can dictate that as long as there are 80 million guns in the world gun control laws that take guns away from law abiding citizens will not make anyone safer. Trust me, I live in NJ which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. We also have some of the most crime ridden and dangerous cities in the nation. Go figure.

I found this article and the "solutions" that they came up with particularly hilarious.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/NEWS01/607230349

[foob]

When will there ever be a need for 110lb. women to fistfight with 210lb. rapists? When will there ever be a need for me to fight somebody with a butcher knife with my bare hands?

You really can't think of any reasons? I have a few:
-When humans develop powerful telekinetic abilities
-When something else becomes the best self-defense weapon (e.g. lasers)
-When magnetic/electrical forcefields/shields are available.
-When there is a method of identifying all rapists/criminals before they commit:scrutiny:

I told you I can't see into the future, so I think it's foolish to say that the need to carry firearms will always be there.

[Zundfolge]

Zundfolge, it is foolish to believe that all anti-gun people are wrong.
But they are ... I don't care how well intentioned they are, they are just factually wrong.

One must always keep an open mind, that there are situations where the absence of firearms is safer. If that wasn't true, then you should be campaigning to bring guns into schools, courthouses, and government buildings. As with any matter, it is a tradeoff issue where usually neither side is wrong.

Gun free zones CREATE the perfect environment for mass shootings by crazy/evil people. Thats why mass shootings happen at schools and courthouses instead of gun shows and shooting ranges.

I had to pull jury duty a few weeks ago ... I can guarantee you that had I been allowed to carry into the courthouse it wouldn't have made the environment there any less safe.



This Post-Modernist ideal that nobody is 100% wrong and nobody is 100% right and one must be "open minded above all else" is part of why western culture is in decline.

There are times when people are just flat wrong ... for example there are people that still believe the earth is flat and that there is some weird global conspiracy to trick the people into believing the world is round ... these people are wrong, and no amount of "open mindedness" is going to change that fact.

[foob]

He also listed several other reasons why people would be anti-gun. Nowhere did he say that the duped represented every person that is an anti.....just most of them as definately seems to be the case.

In fact his list is strikingly similar to the one I posted earlier in this thread. We both arrived at these conclusions on our own and I would be interested in you providing something that conflicts.

I'm not saying his list is wrong....:banghead:

I'm just saying that calling people who "believe that gun control is safer" are people who have been "duped", is wrong, or at the very least, a naive view of this world.

[Dbl0Kevin]

I'm just saying that calling people who "believe that gun control is safer" are people who have been "duped", is wrong, or at the very least, a naive view of this world.

I would be interested to see your reasons for stating this. Better yet, please tell me how gun control will make someone safer?

[foob]

Gun free zones CREATE the perfect environment for mass shootings by crazy/evil people. Thats why mass shootings happen at schools and courthouses instead of gun shows and shooting ranges.

I had to pull jury duty a few weeks ago ... I can guarantee you that had I been allowed to carry into the courthouse it wouldn't have made the environment there any less safe.

Guns are prohibited at schools/courthouses BECAUSE mass shootings happen there.

Mass shootings don't happen there because guns are prohibited there.

I don't think a shooter says, hmm I want to cause mayhem, where should I do it, oh I'll go to a gun prohibited zone.

Think you got the cause and effect part reversed.

[foob]

I would be interested to see your reasons for stating this. Better yet, please tell me how gun control will make someone safer?

I never said gun control will make someone safer.

I'm saying "believe gun control is safer" does not imply "duped", or vice versa. That's all. :banghead:

[Dbl0Kevin]

Guns are prohibited at schools/courthouses BECAUSE mass shootings happen there.

Mass shootings don't happen there because guns are prohibited there.

I don't think a shooter says, hmm I want to cause mayhem, where should I do it, oh I'll go to a gun prohibited zone.

Think you got the cause and effect part reversed.

If that is the case then how did those gun control laws prohibiting guns there make anyone safer as you suggest could be correct?

[Dbl0Kevin]

I never said gun control will make someone safer.

I'm saying "believe gun control is safer" does not imply "duped", or vice versa. That's all.

So let me see if I can get this straight. You agree that gun control will not make anyone safer. But you say that if someone DOES believe that gun control WILL make them safer than they are not duped.

Are you kidding me? :banghead:

[foob]

If that is the case then how did those gun control laws prohibiting guns there make anyone safer as you suggest could be correct?

I never suggested that, I suggested there both pro and anti gun people agree that there are some places where guns should be prohibited.

I draw that conclusion from the fact that I don't see people protesting their right to carry arms in those places (e.g. schools, government buildings, airplanes), and I don't see the NRA lobbying congress to allow carry in those places.

[foob]

So let me see if I can get this straight. You agree that gun control will not make anyone safer. But you say that if someone DOES believe that gun control WILL make them safer than they are not duped.

Are you kidding me?

I never agreed on anything related to gun control (or disagreed).

A person may believe in X, because of Y, not because he was duped. The original poster is implying that a person who believes in gun control was duped into believing so, not because the person found factual evidence that led him to that conclusion. And that is what I am disagreeing with. (And that is the ONLY thing I am disagreeing with right now)

[Dbl0Kevin]

I never suggested that, I suggested there both pro and anti gun people agree that there are some places where guns should be prohibited.

I draw that conclusion from the fact that I don't see people protesting their right to carry arms in those places (e.g. schools, government buildings, airplanes), and I don't see the NRA lobbying congress to allow carry in those places.

1. You are wrong. Most pro-gun people do not agree with that.

2. Just because YOU do not SEE something happening does not mean it isn't.

3. Just because people are not protesting about something does not mean they support it.

[Art Eatman]

foob said, "I'm just saying that calling people who "believe that gun control is safer" are people who have been "duped", is wrong, or at the very least, a naive view of this world."

Seems to me that people who are accepting of wrongful information are dupes. That's the thrust of the dictionary meaning of "dupe". We know from numerous discussions over the last forty years that many people are in such manner accepting of gun control arguments. For instance, right now the thread is running about the Queens DA and the "cop killer" pistol that the reporter accepted as truth; that reporter was duped.

From research such as that of Wright, Rossi & Daly*, we know that gun control laws don't affect violent-crime rates wherein firearms are involved. So: If gun control laws don't affect the rate of violent crime, how, then CAN such laws make us safer? How? I've been asking this question since I first got involved in fighting the passage of GCA '68. I have yet to receive a rational answer.

Sorry, foob; based on my own forty years in this scrap, your arguments do not have merit.

Art

* "Under The Gun", University of Florida Press; 1985

[Dbl0Kevin]

A person may believe in X, because of Y, not because he was duped. The original poster is implying that a person who believes in gun control was duped into believing so, not because the person found factual evidence that led him to that conclusion. And that is what I am disagreeing with. (And that is the ONLY thing I am disagreeing with right now)

When a person believes X because of incorrect "factual evidence" or straight out lies then yes that person is duped. The fact is there is NO evidence that proves conclusively that gun control will make you safer. Just look at the places with the strictest gun control...they are all some of the unsafest places you can be.

You continue to try to apply the "open mind" theory to a general aspect of gun control to which it cannot be applied. That is where the people are wrong.

For an individual's PERSONAL decision on whether or not having a gun will make them safer an open mind IS neccessary and the decision CAN be different for everyone. But to apply YOUR decision to everyone else is WRONG.

[Dbl0Kevin]

If you read the article that I posted the link to on the previous page you will see what Camden, NJ is like. A city in a state with very strict gun control. Apparently that didn't work so now they're moving on to trying to control other things. This is the part that really made me laugh....

And the City Council recently proposed a new curfew law. Harmon was shot and killed at a chicken takeout restaurant that served food until 4 a.m., two hours after the bars closed. The proposed curfew would require small food takeout places to close hours earlier.

When chicken takeout's are outlawed.....only outlaws will have chicken takeout. :banghead:

[foob]

Ok I'll just rephrase it one more time, and I'll let it go.

I'm not expressing my personal views on whether gun control is right or wrong, or makes the community safer or more dangerous. Therefore I cannot be wrong or right because I have not even expressed my view on gun control.

Lets use an example to show what I'm saying.

The topic is the existence of god.
Person X believes in the existence of god, because of reason A.
Person Y does not believe in the existence of god, because of reason B.
Person X says that person Y has been duped because he was told reason C by person Z. That is obviously wrong.

This Post-Modernist ideal that nobody is 100% wrong and nobody is 100% right and one must be "open minded above all else" is part of why western culture is in decline.

There are times when people are just flat wrong ... for example there are people that still believe the earth is flat and that there is some weird global conspiracy to trick the people into believing the world is round ... these people are wrong, and no amount of "open mindedness" is going to change that fact.

Do you have evidence the earth is not flat? Have you conducted experiments to determine if the earth is flat or spherical? If you did perform experiments, how do you know your measuring equipment was functioning? How do you know the earth is not shaped like an egg? Most of our beliefs are based on determinations by others (e.g. scientists), so to have a 100% belief, instead of a 99.9% belief that the earth is not flat, is, to me, foolish. My beliefs are tampered by humility and the understanding that I do not know everything, and I damn sure don't know anything with certainty. Anyway, considering the topic of gun control, which is a lot harder to determine than whether the earth is flat, to have a 100% belief in it is mind-blowing.

I could be wrong, when I say that pro/anti gun people agree that there are some places (e.g. schools, government buildings, airplanes) that should be gun-free. I only drew this conclusion because I didn't observe any lobbying or protesting against carrying in these places. I admit I could be wrong.

The fact is there is NO evidence that proves conclusively that gun control will make you safer. Just look at the places with the strictest gun control...they are all some of the unsafest places you can be.

But the fact is there is NO evidence that proves conclusively that gun control will not make you safer. Just look at the places with the strictest gun control...they are all some of the safest places you can be (e.g. Singapore).

See, I can make the same argument in reverse, and you can't poke holes in it. That is because everybody can cherry-pick their evidence. Just like somebody saying that they saw somebody shoot a 9mm and the BG kept charging and needed 15 shots, and he saw somebody else use a .45 and the BG dropped in 1 shot. Then he states with certainty that .45 is better than 9mm.

[Byron Quick]

Down here in Georgia we have restaurants that are open 24/7. And people carry in them. I don't think I've ever read of some thug shooting a patron.

foob, it is possible for a well intentioned person to dupe himself with fallacious logic.

Someone who believes in something that research shows to be fallacious is not guilty of duping themselves? In fact, your apparent line of reasoning is an example.

You asserted that the carrying of firearms in schools and courthouses is forbidden for mass shooting happen there. Do you have proof of that statement?

I do not have proof of this statement: I would be surprised if the prohibition of weapons in courts does not predate the development of man portable firearms and firearm prohibition-at least in courts-is simply an outgrowth of very old law.

The reason I'm not protesting the prohibition of firearms in schools, courthouses, and airplanes has nothing to do with my supposed approval of these measures. There is only some many hours in the day and a finite amount of energy in any person. I CHOOSE to fight battles where I believe I have a chance of winning. As far as airlines are concerned, I do protest. With my wallet. I was last on a passenger jet in 1974. The Army paid for my ticket. As long as the asinine laws are in place about firearms on planes, I will continue to protest the matter financially.

[Dbl0Kevin]

Do you have evidence the earth is not flat? Have you conducted experiments to determine if the earth is flat or spherical? How do you know the earth is not shaped like an egg? Most of our beliefs are based on determinations by others (e.g. scientists), so to have a 100% belief, instead of a 99.9% belief that the earth is not flat, is, to me, foolish. My beliefs are tampered by humility and the understanding that I do not know everything, and I damn sure don't know anything with certainty.

I'll address this one first. I have not done "experiments" per se to determine if the earth is flat. However, I have viewed objects sink out of view over the horizon while on the ocean. As a semi-educated individual this would prove to me that the earth is not a flat surface and has a curvature to it. I've also seen NUMEROUS pictures and videos of the planet earth from space that show it to be round. To think the earth could possibly be flat would mean that we have ALL been duped by an insanely large conspiracy that just wouldn't make any sense.

The topic is the existence of god.
Person X believes in the existence of god, because of reason A.
Person Y does not believe in the existence of god, because of reason B.
Person X says that person Y has been duped because he was told reason C by person Z. That is obviously wrong.

This is a poor analogy that you have chosen to use for the simple fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to prove that something does NOT exist.

If we look at gun control, however, it is an accepted fact that there are over 200 million guns in the country. It is also accepted that there is no way to simply round them all up and take them out of circulation. Since gun laws already forbid criminals from committing crimes and convicted felons from owning guns yet both still occur it is accepted that laws will not stop crime. From all that it would stand to reason that more gun control will not stop criminals from committing crimes with guns and therefore will not make you safer.

[Dbl0Kevin]

But the fact is there is NO evidence that proves conclusively that gun control will not make you safer. Just look at the places with the strictest gun control...they are all some of the safest places you can be (e.g. Singapore).

See, I can make the same argument in reverse, and you can't poke holes in it. That is because everybody can cherry-pick their evidence. Just like somebody saying that they saw somebody shoot a 9mm and the BG kept charging and needed 15 shots, and he saw somebody else use a .45 and the BG dropped in 1 shot. Then he states with certainty that .45 is better than 9mm.

Again your logic is flawed here. My statement is easily verified that there are very many areas with strict gun control with high crime rates that are dangerous. This shows that the gun control did not effect the safety of those people.

In your example of pointing out certain areas with strict gun control that are not dangerous does not prove the reason for this was gun control. The fact that there are many places with strict gun control and are very dangerous precludes this.

All this does is prove that gun control does not make a community less or more safe thus proving my original point.

[Bruce H]

There is arrogance. One member posting in this thread had demonstrated that. Arrogance is far more dangerous than ignorance.

[lionking]

jeez I feel dizzy after reading the last few posts,or maybe its just the cuban coffee Ive been drinking...

criminals will never care whether they are allowed to carry in a school or courtroom or where ever cause they are criminals!
Here in Florida the anti's tried to "dupe" people by saying concealed carry would mean bloodbaths in the street,never happened,no wild wild west here.
Ah then there was the assault ban,hey its just 19 specific rifles,surely you can deal with that besides what do you need those for anyway?People are dying left and right in the streets because of those 19 assault guns...
Well the ban turned out to be more then just 19,and Sarah Brady then admitted that the percentage of crime commited with them was actually low,but hey.

gun control doesnt make people safer,they are kidding themselves

[Art Eatman]

foob, your line of argument is generally called "sophistry", and there's not a particularly positive view of the practitioners thereof.

On the Internet, the style is often referred to as trollish behavior. "Wilful obfuscation" can also apply.

Art

[foob]

Wow, would never believe I would be accused of being arrogant (if that was directed at me) and being a troll. Reread all my posts and have an open mind. That's the only thing left to say.

foob, it is possible for a well intentioned person to dupe himself with fallacious logic.


Yes but that's not what was stated by him, he specifically states "these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement."

From wiki, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.

If you can see any views I have expressed that show arrogance or condescention towards others, or believe that my defense of false accusations and misinterpretations of what I have written is "trolling", then please ban me. Else apologise for your mistake.

[Deanimator]

But they are ... I don't care how well intentioned they are, they are just factually wrong.
And pretty flamboyant about it too.

Any time somebody tells you that AK47s have *500* round magazines, and that his grandfather carried a semi-auto *8ga.* shotgun in WWI, that's clearly the flat earth territory.

Some of it's just ignorance. The greatest portion of it is LIES, STUPID lies.

[Deanimator]

Guns are prohibited at schools/courthouses BECAUSE mass shootings happen there.

Mass shootings don't happen there because guns are prohibited there.
You're wrong. They happen because they're a SAFE PLACE to commit them. How come there are more mass shootings at schools where guns are forbidden, than at gunshows where guns are ubiquitous? Why are there no mass shootings at the National Matches at Camp Perry?

[Deanimator]

I told you I can't see into the future, so I think it's foolish to say that the need to carry firearms will always be there.
You don't even seem to be able to see into the present...

[Durruti]

Getting back to the whole psychology thing, I'd like to throw in my two cents.

I think part of it has to do with an inability (or an unwillingness) to look at evidence on both sides. All too often we hear anti-gunners say, "if it saves even one life...". What they do is point out the tragic times that firearms are used while ignoring all the positive times they are used as well as the times when their possession prevents a bad situation from getting off the ground.

We see a similar sort of thing when people try to determine how safe it is to fly versus drive. As many of us know, it's safer to be in an airplane than in a car, but people are much more worried about flying than driving. Why? Because it's easier to remember examples of airplane disasters than car disasters. Terrorism is another example. People are terrified of terrorism despite the fact that it's one of the rarest causes of death. With guns, it's easy to think of times when guns have been used for bad ends. When guns are used for good ends, however, it rarely makes the news (not just because the media have an agenda, either...it's because it's not exciting). This is especially true when considering the fact that the main good that guns do is keep governments from killing their citizens. Despite its importance, that's an incredibly nebulous concept.

I've also noticed an interesting dichotomy among the far left. The Marxists I know tend to be pretty anti-gun (how they expect to overthrow the government without weapons is beyond me :) ). Anarchists, on the other hand, tend to be quite open to firearms training. Not sure why that is. Maybe because of the anarchist ideal of equality.

Someone at the begining mentioned something about the left being motivated by masochism. That sounds totally absurd, but if you have any evidence, I'd be happy to look at it.

Finally, I just wanted to get in a word about the Sigmund Freud quote I've noticed in a few signatures. Although I get a smile out of it each time I see it, I must point out that Freud shouldn't be taken seriously. His theories weren't backed up with any evidence, and 80 years of research hasn't yielded any support for his assertions.

Durruti
(recent lurker...first time poster)

[Fosbery]

The Marxists I know tend to be pretty anti-gun

Well now you know one who isn't :D

[SuperNaut]

When pacifists try to characterize 2a supporters as blood-thirsty psychopaths it really chaps my hide. Is that really the best way to get the point across? Marginalize and dehumanize your opposition? You know what gets my attention? Facts.

The same goes for the OP.

[squarooticus]

We see a similar sort of thing when people try to determine how safe it is to fly versus drive. As many of us know, it's safer to be in an airplane than in a car, but people are much more worried about flying than driving. Why? Because it's easier to remember examples of airplane disasters than car disasters.
I actually don't think this is it.

I don't fear flying, but I much prefer driving over flying despite the statistically greater likelihood of dying in a car because in a car I have control: I can drive defensively; I can drive at times and on roads with fewer other cars; I can choose not to drive in the rain or snow; I can avoid roads with lots of deer; I can choose the driver; etc. In short, I have a significant amount of control over the conditions under which I drive, which can drastically alter the odds of getting into a serious accident.

The same is not true of flying: I need to make reservations far in advance of any predictions about the weather; I don't get to choose the pilot; I don't get to choose the maintenance crew; and I don't get to choose the other passengers. When flying, you really are rolling the dice, because you have almost zero control over the flight conditions.

This is why I would carry even were someone able to prove that statistically I would be (say) 10x more likely to be killed while carrying versus not. Why? Because statistics are just that: statistics. They say a lot about large groups, but nothing about individuals. And it seems pretty clear to me that my chances of survival are much greater with a gun than without, regardless of the starting conditions, because I am not dumb. :p

Cheers,
Kyle

[Durruti]

Squarooticus,

Hmmm... how to put this nicely...?

I will say that in general (not refering to you personally) most people consider themselves above average. This is particularly true with regards to both driving and shooting ability.

Of course, maybe you are above average (half of all people are, after all). Again, I'm not saying anything about you personally, just that this is an error people tend to make.

Cheers back at ya! :D
Durruti

[Durruti]

Well now you know one who isn't :D

Duly noted ;)

[lionking]

quote supernaut;When pacifists try to characterize 2a supporters as blood-thirsty psychopaths it really chaps my hide. Is that really the best way to get the point across? Marginalize and dehumanize your opposition? You know what gets my attention? Facts.

they don't care about facts.Lies and stereotyping gunowners is their standard method of operating.Just like they will never admit to a gunban or restriction being a failure but will demand more money or a broadening of the guncontrol laws instead.
Pacifists,I can actually respect that idea in a sense,there have been many combat medics who were pacifists who still put themselves in the line of fire to serve.Alot of anti gunners are more elitists rather than pacifists though who feel it fine to defend themselves but see others not being as intellectually or morally capable,ala hollywood types and politicians who own a gun or use a bodyguard yet actively support gun control.

I suppose Im preaching to the choir though.

[SuperNaut]

My wife was a staunch anti, I won her over with data, and patience. She's not a masochist, and most definitely has high self-esteem.

If you don't care about increasing the numbers of intelligent Constitution savvy people on our side, by all means continue to pretend that they aren't just like you and me. It sure is easier.

If the OP had linked to any data at all, I might be singing a different tune.

[mountainclmbr]

Let us just be thankful that none of the passengers of the 9/11 flights had a gun. They were disarmed to prevent danger. It worked and the hijackers were perfectly safe. We should disarm as a country to prove to our enemies that we mean them no harm!

Leftists please repeat after me: " Baaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaa!".

[Durruti]

SuperNaut makes an excellent point. For the most part, antis are not that different from us. We won't win over the hardcore ones, but most of them are open, rational people who might be willing to change positions with a little talk (and range time ;) ).

[lionking]

I see what you are saying supernaut,a everyday person may be persuaded but the chief gun control advocates will doubtfully be persuaded,they are to be defeated rather than debated.

[justiceforRob]

Just new to this thread and not sure how this all works but.....I got on this thread..legal and political... to ask questions and get some feedback from other people about our situation. My best friend Rob was celebrating the Fourth of July. The neighbors called the sheriff's department and two deputies responded. They shot my friend 3 times to the head. The county investigated itself and came up with self defense on their part. End of investigation I suppose and no questions are being answered to the family. What can someone do to get an outside investigation started. My friend had a concealed weapons permit in the county and state that he was killed. Any feedback appreciated!

[SuperNaut]

I see what you are saying supernaut,a everyday person may be persuaded but the chief gun control advocates will doubtfully be persuaded,they are to be defeated rather than debated.

Roger that.

People are funny and fickle though. I had a lot of anti friends who changed their minds literally overnight after Katrina.

Sometimes it takes events like a f******g massive disaster to wake people up, other times it takes just a little patience. I know it's more fun to think that antis are all screwy in the head, but I know from experience that they just haven't been presented the data in a calm cogent manner.

I have to count to ten every time an anti tells me that it is only a matter of time before I snap and kill everyone in my neighborhood. If I got all fired up at their mischaracterization and unthinkingly demeaned them it would only cement their position.

I'll be the calm one, I'll be the rational one, I'll present data, and not just win them over; but everyone listening too.

[squarooticus]

I will say that in general (not refering to you personally) most people consider themselves above average.
What I said with respect to driving/flying has very little to do with whether I'm above average or not: most of it addresses the conditions under which I choose to drive, not my skill, though certainly I do have a high opinion of myself there. :cool:

As for carrying a gun, yes, a lot of that is related to skill and awareness; but just as much of it is related to keeping cleaning areas free of ammunition, locking up guns that are not currently in-use as defensive weapons, teaching the people who share your living space to respect guns, and generally following the four rules. I'm going to guess that most of us here are above average on those counts.

There's a lot more to beating statistics than fooling one's self. Most of it has to do with understanding the group that is being profiled, and figuring out whether and in what way you are an outlier. Since surveys don't usually provide you with enough information about the people being profiled, it's hard to do that, so you just make an educated guess.

Cheers,
Kyle

[mountainclmbr]

The problem is that laws do not discourage crimminals, especially when there are lax sentences that seem to have the goal to encourage even more LEO control and resulting taxes because people feel less safe. So gun control laws will primarily affect the law-abiding while possibly encouraging the law breakers. A disarmed populace is easy pickings for the felon with nothing much to lose. A disarmed populace is also easy pickings for power grabbing politicians. I have a problem with both with no idea which is worse. I feel that the politicians/LEOs and crimminals are both competing for the money in my wallet. It seems that they symphathise with each other. I am struggling to see the difference.

[Zundfolge]

foob, it is possible for a well intentioned person to dupe himself with fallacious logic.

Yes but that's not what was stated by him, he specifically states "these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement."



I still stand by that statement.

The statement "Gun control will reduce crime." is a lie told by people who know it is a lie in order to convince other people to support their cause. It is also a lie told by people who believe it to be the truth.

The facts, the data, the truth ... all back up the idea that gun control (regardless of degree) does absolutely NOTHING to make a community or country safer.

I believe that most people who support gun control either by voting for gun control politicians or by their answers to polls asking about gun control, or if asked what they believe they will say gun control is a good idea ... most of these people are not activists, just normal people who have been told a lie and happen to believe it. They have been duped.


For an outline of the facts involved, please go here www.gunfacts.info and note that the Gun Facts report is backed up by many sources. Go there and make up your own mind about the rightness or wrongness of those who believe in gun control.


Oh and for the record I don't think you're a troll ... you sure aren't acting like one, you're just engaging in a civil debate as far as I can tell (only thing more annoying than trolls on forums is people who jump up and shout TROLL every time someone with a different point of view shows up).

[Baba Louie]

justiceforRob, check your p.m.

back on topic...
While this is a dangerous and, dare I say it, an emotional thing to do... those anti-gun types can be stereotyped and generalized as emotional stereotypists who generalize that guns, and thus gun owners, are... icky and scary and might harm them. Just as I might do the same about them and their attempts and ill-thought out desires to disarm me and mine in a world of truly evil ner-do-wells who seem to do quite well knowing that a whole lot of us DO own firearms. Can you imagine our society wherein only criminals and the police are armed with firearms? Like the Mayor of New Orleans wanted last September or Washington DC?

Doesn't work for me.

[Byron Quick]

If anti rhetoric is examined a large part of the 'reasoning' is based on a fundamental lack of trust of people who carry and who wish to have the means to defend themselves with firearms.

This distrust does not come from research into what actually happens across the nation amongst CCW holders. Rather it comes from within the antis themselves. Many of them realize they could not be trusted to carry a firearm in a trustworthy manner.

This realization leaves them with two choices: 1) Acknowledging that the vast majority of CCW holders are more responsible than they are, have better self control than they...or 2) demanding that we should be restricted for we obviously can not be more competent, more responsible, and have better self control.

This, I believe, is part of the psychology but does not explain the higher levels of the gun control movement's hierarchy. The top people cannot be explained in this manner. They do have the self control necessary to responsibly carry. They do have the intelligence to realize gun control laws do not work and have never worked. Therefore, their goals are different than their stated goals and their motivations are different than their stated motivations. To take their stated goals and stated motivations at face value, one would be forced to assume a lack of intelligence coupled with an inability to grasp reality. I do not make that assumption. Since there is such a wide variance between their observed ability and their words and actions-I am forced to the conclusion that their goals and motivations are not what is proclaimed. This, in turn, leads me to view those leaders-and their duped followers-with suspicion.

[tellner]

At some point intellectually honest people will agree on the facts and apply consistent methods of inference to draw conclusions from them. One reason we are not in agreement is that for all of us (yes, including the Fundamentalist Objectivists) the basic axioms by which our minds work, their substructure, is based on beliefs and views of the world that are inarguable and not susceptible to external logic.

[squarooticus]

To take their stated goals and stated motivations at face value, one would be forced to assume a lack of intelligence coupled with an inability to grasp reality. I do not make that assumption. Since there is such a wide variance between their observed ability and their words and actions-I am forced to the conclusion that their goals and motivations are not what is proclaimed.
I am almost convinced that they don't mean what they say. Seeing how politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth on other issues, why should guns be any different?

Privately, they may even acknowledge that at worst private gun ownership and CCW have no effect on crime; but they are able to use it as a wedge issue based primarily on the ignorance (no offense intended; I mean it literally) of the populace with regard to guns. It serves to form their base. It's despicable behavior, but do you expect any different from career politicians who've never had to put in an honest day's work in their lives?

Thus, I recommend a healthy dose of education. Since getting my permit in April and joining one of the local clubs, I have brought 4 non-shooters to the club as guests. At least two of them will be applying for permits, and one of them is a confirmed lib (gay and Democrat voter). This is what we need to do to make this issue not a wedge issue anymore.

Cheers,
Kyle

[iliketoshootguns]

This is good stuff. I have learned a great deal from all of you.

BTW my original post was not touching on the fence sitters per se, but was more in regards to radical leftists, as in the hardcore san francisco ban everything outright bunch.

I too realize that there are moderate people who just need a little education in the right direction to see legitimate gun ownership as a good thing.

My concern is the psychology of those who have the unrelenting will and resources to make the second amendment a thing of the past.

Yall have a nice day.

[tellner]

Just another radical leftist view...

Gun control cements the use of force in the hands of the police, military and private security. The government is largely a bought and paid for operation of the corporate elite. It behooves those whose interests are with the working classes to democratize the ownership of weapons.

[Koobuh]

Of course the People's Army types believe that. They also believe that once the Glorious Revolution is over, there is no longer a need for arms- therefore, no one but the People's Government, Police, and Army may have them.
Since the People obviously have already had a say in how government is administered, they no longer have need to hold onto arms in order to overthrow their capitalist oppressors, and anything the people do not need, they shall not have. :)

:barf:

No sweeter poison but the words we love to hear, from the mouths of seeming friends.

[LAK]

What is the psychology of anti-gun people?

You have an elite whose vice is called power and control. They are generally extremely wealthy, have no moral compass, and have no conscience (or it has been dulled to the point that it is not active).

Then you have those who are obsessed with themselves, often gripped by forms of vice, and do not exercize reason and logic to conclusive ends in all things that come or are set before them. They sometimes do not care about the subject matter and will agree with someone to get something else they want. Also generally with no firm moral compass.

Those who are emotionally driven (as opposed to people who are primarily guided by reason and logic). Who when confronted with horror, suffering, death etc, exercize judgments clouded by their emotional perceptions.

The first group uses and manipulates the second two in a variety of ways for their own ends. All three are described offhand in condensed form - and there are variations to each group with overlaps now and then.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Deanimator]

Well now you know one who isn't
I had a friend in lawschool who was a Stalinist and he was VERY pro-gun. It was the Klan massacre of the communists in North Carolina that changed his mind.

Of course once he came to power, he would have disarmed and massacred all of his opponents...

[dance varmint]

The anti-gun person watches the violent crime on the news and says,
"It won't happen to ME."

The gun person watches the violent crime on the news, checks his chamber, and says,
"It WON'T happen to me."

[Jeff]

The worst combination of anything comes from the putrid blend of fear, loathing, and hubris. Fear of guns, loathing for those who own them, and the hubris to not want to be wrong.

The final ingredient is the most insidious, because in the light of reasoning, logic, facts, and history, stubborn and unreasonable jackasses will never admit they subscribed their whole lives to the sub-culture of gun control and the utter wrongfulness of its immorality.

[tellner]

Well, Jeff, the same sort of things apply in spades to many on our side. Start with a pathological inability to believe that one can be wrong on anything and the hidden refrain of that sort "Anything I like is everything I like. Anything I hate is everything I hate." Honestly, antis tend to be less subject to that particular character flaw than pros. True Believers call this being wishy washy.

Oh, and for the previous poster...

Yes, the anti may say "That can't happen to me" while the pro says "That won't happen to me". But the realist doesn't make important decisions based on the "if it bleeds, it leads" infotainment that passes for news these days. He or she will try to figure out what the real odds and contingencies are and make plans accordingly, unswayed by the ratings-induced panic inculcated by the media.

[Jeff]

Todd, I find your comment inaccurate since I know I am on the side of Objective truth.

You might feel less confident of your position, but that is ok.

I know where I stand.

Your signature line nicely sums up moral relativism and, of course, never takes into account being correct in the first place.

Blake was a second-rate artist/poet. His philosophy skills were even less regarded.

[Mr.V.]

Foob--

Let's take guns on airplanes for example because it really nails down the funamental ideology on both sides of the issue.

Look on anti-gun websites. You'll see the idea that, "only an idiot would let people have guns on airplanes who weren't law enforcement. Tempers get going in that cramped space. Someone's bound to go on a shooting spree."

Most of the arguments center around the fact that there is this one Charles Whitman type guy who is angry and will start shooting people if he has to keep his tray-table in the upright and locked position...the thing that's so brilliantly effective about this argument is that we've all seen "that guy" before (if you haven't, just spend 2 hours in traffic, and you'll see 10-20 of them).

Their argument rests on a lot of assumptions. The first and most basic assumption of course is that by banning guns on planes you can prevent 100% of them from getting on the plane. There have been plenty of news stories documenting how well that worked.

The second, and really the most sad, assumption is that if guns were allowed on planes, no good-guy would have one. No one will be there to stop this guy. There's not going to be any heros or heroines who will do the right thing. There's no trust. Mix that with the fact that the gun culture continues to erode and less and less of a percentage of the people own guns, it's easier and easier for them to make this arguement and extend it to situations well beyond airplanes.

This is why we need more gun owners. And this is probably the most fundamental difference when you see the points argued here. Most people are saying, "if I had a gun on the airplane, it would be better. I'd do the right thing! I'd stop 'that guy'"

But as long as a majority of the people do not have guns, they will be willing to give up their right to own a gun just to prevent "that guy" from having one...after all it's a right they weren't excercizing in the first place.

[tellner]

Todd, I find your comment inaccurate since I know I am on the side of Objective truth.

You might feel less confident of your position, but that is ok.

I know where I stand.

Your signature line nicely sums up moral relativism and, of course, never takes into account being correct in the first place.

Blake was a second-rate artist/poet. His philosophy skills were even less regarded.

Then, Jeff, I fear that you are suffering either from hubris or from clinical delusions. "On the side of Objective truth"? If you are, then you must, unless you are the Lord G-d Almighty - and you aren't - be prepared to say "I was mistaken" on a depressingly regular basis. That's what objective reality is like. It doesn't care how inflated your opinion is of your own infallibility.

Everything worth learning from the sciences to human relations is a process of discovery, experiment and study. By definition, at least the definition of any sane man, this means that you must correct course and have the basic honesty to say "That didn't work. Let's try this" or "No matter how much I want it to be true milk comes from cows, not oysters."

It is the subjective feelings which are inarguable and not subject to reason, logic, or debate. I am willing to bet that a lot of your vaunted objectivity really does reduce to that in the end. Your psyche requires that you be right no matter what, no matter how much the evidence suggests otherwise. Mine is strong enough to admit that the universe does not revolve around me or warp itself to conform to my prejudices and wishes. It exists, objectively, and I must take it as it is even if that means abandoning pet theories from time to time.

Does my sig mean "Nothing is true. One thing is as good as another"? Only if one lacks the ability to comprehend simple English sentences. It says "the man who never alters", not "everyone but the man who always alters".

Blake a second rate poet? Eh, he was well enough regarded, and his verse like that of Whitman and Ginsburg has survived even though it is not to everyone's taste. I daresay he saw more clearly and was more honest with himself than one who believes he can not be wrong and refuses to acknowledge the objective reality he claims to represent.

[Dbl0Kevin]

Your psyche requires that you be right no matter what, no matter how much the evidence suggests otherwise. Mine is strong enough to admit that the universe does not revolve around me or warp itself to conform to my prejudices and wishes.

Wow, who's the one with the hubris going on? :rolleyes:

Ok, Tellner, you say that people must be able to change their minds and admit they are wrong sometimes. Well what makes you think that any of us never admit we are wrong on other issues? To apply your whole "philosophy" to just this one issue is incredibly foolish and not even the correct application of "objective truth".

Did it ever occur to you that maybe we all HAVE learned about this issue through research, experience, and experimentation in order to reach the conclusion that we have? Why would we suddenly change that view with absolutely no evidence to the contrary? Why should we not feel that people who are basing thier beliefs on false evidence, outright lies, and uninformed emotions have been fooled. Why should we give those people the same respect for their opinion when they haven't done any of the research, experience, or experimentation that we have?

I will ask the same question of you that I did to Foob and never got an answer. How can gun-control make anyone safer? Only if you can provide a factually correct and logical answer to that will you have any standing to tell us we need to consider other options. Good luck with doing it though because it has never been done.

[SuperNaut]

I think the problem lies in split between the ideal that "man is basically good," and reality.

I have no doubt that mankind for the most part is basically good, but anyone who hasn't just fallen off the turnip truck knows that ideals and reality part ways more often than not. Anyone who creates a plan based on the best case scenario is worse than a fool.

[Justin]

To deny that free individuals have a self-evident right to defend their person is to introduce folly. This is why Jeff is right.

One cannot, through observation, come to the conclusion that "milk comes from oysters."

But through observation, it becomes quite obvious that those denied, by rule of law, the right to self-defense are most emphatically not trusted by the state, and are therefore unfree.

[Justin]

Anyone who creates a plan based on the best case scenario is worse than a fool.

And anyone who would restrict the rights of all in order to restrain the few thugs is either a tyrant or a Kindergarten teacher.

[SuperNaut]

Justin, I may be reading your post wrong, but it seems that you think I'm taking a position that I am not.

[glummer]

"Gun control" is bigotry. Literally.

Antis = racists = anti-semites
JBT = KKK = Nazis
Gun-owners = uppity n****rs = international jewish conspiracy.

The emotional logic of "gun control" is simple. The target group (us) is evil, and deserves to be suppressed/punished/eliminated. "Cultural cleansing" is the goal.
A "good" law is one that successfully persecutes the target group. England has "good" laws; they work as they are supposed to. Firearms ownership has been reduced to virtually nothing in a century or less. And without the messy violence of lynchings, and the Holocaust. Excellent laws!

"Gun control" fails to reduce crime, because that is not the target.
Gun-ownership is the target. And success is hitting your target.
They ARE out to get us.

[birddog]

Having taken the conservative road for the better part of my adult life, I can sum gun-control, animal-rights, and many other factions that call the liberal left home up in one word: Laziness.

It takes some people a lot of effort to realize that which most of us simply hold up to the light as basic common sense. It's very very very easy to say "oh, I am against gun ownership, because it breeds violence". It's a pain in the neck to say "I may someday need to defend my family, and should learn how to do it" and then proceed to fill out the forms and jump through the hoops and spend the money.......It ain't easy being a THR type person.

You can apply the laziness-in-thinking to almost every position on the left.

Anti-war: leave them alone, they're not bothering us

Anti-hunting: leave them alone, you should be getting your meat out of those cute little plastic wrapped containers -- not from a dead animal!

You name it, laziness fits their agenda.

[tellner]

"To deny that free individuals have a self-evident right to defend their person is to introduce folly. This is why Jeff is right."

What in the world is in that pipe you're smoking, friend? Some of that Mexican rope, maybe? If you can extract from anything I've said about the desirability of changing your mind when new facts present themselves that somehow means there is no right or imperative for self protection something has gone very wrong in the way logic works in your brain. The only possible way it could be construed that way is the following:

1) I like A.
2) A is good.
3) He likes B.
4) I don't like B.
5) B is bad.
6) He likes bad things.
7) He can't like anything good.
8) Ergo, he doesn't like A.

It's a convoluted version of "I'm everything that's good. He isn't just like me. He must be bad." and brother to "You play with him. I don't like him. So I don't like you." Hubris, shirk, incomplete socialization. Choose your poison, just five cents a glass.

I maintain that that isn't the logic of adults and inquirers after the truth. It is the logic of fanatics, the pathologically narcissistic and those with only a passing connection to reality.

Now, as to the thing that sent some of you into a hissy...

Consider that putative news story.

The straw-man anti says "It can't happen to me, so I will continue in my opposition to people having guns." Consider the possibility, please, that he isn't as stupid or delusional as you make him out to be. He probably believes something more along the lines of "That was bad. But even though it's happening on TV it hasn't happened to me. It hasn't happened to anyone I know. So things aren't bad enough for me to abandon one of my principles out of fear," or any of a number of other possibilities.

Your Potemkin pro doesn't sound like most gun owners I know. He sounds like a complete sheep. "There's something bad happening on TV. I must run to the store and spend more money on guns because the TV scares me, and I'll do whatever it wants me to." Pretty lame if you ask me and an slur on the vast majority of gun owners.

Someone with the brains that the good Lord gave to a woodchuck will reject both of these insulting extremes. He will try to figure out what the real risks in his life are. He will consider the options, their costs and benefits, and discount the panicked bleating of the television set. Using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in his lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree. It might involve getting another gun. It might mean doing absolutely nothing because the real risks are too small to justify any added expense.

The one thing that is non-negotiable for a rational view of the world based in reality is respect for the facts even when they aren't comfortable.

[Mr.V.]

What in the world is in that pipe you're smoking, friend? Some of that Mexican rope, maybe?...something has gone very wrong in the way logic works in your brain.
that personal attack is a bit much. If you truly have a superior point just argue the point.

Also...
Using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in his lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree.

Is ironically arguing a very libertarian principle...you decide what's best for you. Very few pro-gun supporters want to FORCE guns on others. Most would be afraid of such a circumstance. But you interestingly didn't state "using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in others' lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree." Which is a far more socialist and gun-control line of reasoning

So why not do as you say and let people decide for themselves how much cost-to-benefit they feel is proper...?

[Tinker]

iliketoshootguns,

I haven't read this whole thread. But to answer your original question, read this article by an Aussie named Dr. Jon Ray. Long, but interesting.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftism2.html

[Tinker]

I'm in a hurry and kind of fat fingered my first post. I'm in a hurry...

Something I need to clarify. Jon Ray's piece deals mainly with the pschology of leftists. Seeing how most of the gun grabbers (UN, Schumer, Boxer, etc.) are of a leftist slant I think the linked article relevant to your original question.

[Dbl0Kevin]

The straw-man anti says "It can't happen to me, so I will continue in my opposition to people having guns." Consider the possibility, please, that he isn't as stupid or delusional as you make him out to be. He probably believes something more along the lines of "That was bad. But even though it's happening on TV it hasn't happened to me. It hasn't happened to anyone I know. So things aren't bad enough for me to abandon one of my principles out of fear," or any of a number of other possibilities.

Your Potemkin pro doesn't sound like most gun owners I know. He sounds like a complete sheep. "There's something bad happening on TV. I must run to the store and spend more money on guns because the TV scares me, and I'll do whatever it wants me to." Pretty lame if you ask me and an slur on the vast majority of gun owners.

Someone with the brains that the good Lord gave to a woodchuck will reject both of these insulting extremes. He will try to figure out what the real risks in his life are. He will consider the options, their costs and benefits, and discount the panicked bleating of the television set. Using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in his lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree. It might involve getting another gun. It might mean doing absolutely nothing because the real risks are too small to justify any added expense.

The one thing that is non-negotiable for a rational view of the world based in reality is respect for the facts even when they aren't comfortable.

I believe what Tellner is trying to employ here is the comic Louis CK's approach to arguing with others. I'll argue with you, but about something completely different than what you're talking about.

In case you missed it Tellner, this whole discussion is about the psychology of anti-gun people. Anti-gun people are NOT people who choose not to personally have a firearm for their own protection as they don't see the need for it. On the contrary anti-gun people are those who say YOU can't have a gun for your own protection because YOU don't need it and they have made that decision for you.

I also note that you complete skipped over my question....just as Foob did. I'm so surprised. :rolleyes:

[tellner]

Unfortunately, it is the point. At every turn here it's been a clash between basic values and mindsets. On one hand there is "I am always right. I can not be wrong. Anyone who isn't slavishly like me is everything bad. Any view that isn't just like mine is wrong, insane, deluded or evil." The other is "Even people who disagree with me are no more likely to be crazy or stupid than I am. I am not G-d. I am capable of being mistaken. The only way to correct mistakes is to view the evidence and change course accordingly."

In any argument or debate you have facts and rules of inference. Honest, intelligent people can come to agreement on the first and generally agree on the second unless they have an agenda that precludes the possibility of error - dishonesty or hubris, take your pick. Everyone has deep structures to their thought, presuppositions, ways of looking at the world, whatever, that are not rational or subject to logical analysis. That's the way human brains work. The key to productive argument is finding the first, consistently applying the second and teasing out the last. That way you can find points for agreement or at least understand what the real irreconcilable differences are. That is how rational men and women do these things.

The position that anyone who might disagree with one for any reason must be insane, evil, stupid or a dupe is not the position of an intelligent adult. To compound that failing with a bald assertion that the objective universe must conform to one's expectations because one believes that it does is inexcusable.

Every field of human endeavor without exception has progressed through rejection of what doesn't work, refinement of what somewhat works and innovation to find new things that work. There is no place in any of this for wishful thinking or mindless dogmatism.

[Dbl0Kevin]

Unfortunately, it is the point. At every turn here it's been a clash between basic values and mindsets. On one hand there is "I am always right. I can not be wrong. Anyone who isn't slavishly like me is everything bad. Any view that isn't just like mine is wrong, insane, deluded or evil." The other is "Even people who disagree with me are no more likely to be crazy or stupid than I am. I am not G-d. I am capable of being mistaken. The only way to correct mistakes is to view the evidence and change course accordingly."

In any argument or debate you have facts and rules of inference. Honest, intelligent people can come to agreement on the first and generally agree on the second unless they have an agenda that precludes the possibility of error - dishonesty or hubris, take your pick. Everyone has deep structures to their thought, presuppositions, ways of looking at the world, whatever, that are not rational or subject to logical analysis. That's the way human brains work. The key to productive argument is finding the first, consistently applying the second and teasing out the last. That way you can find points for agreement or at least understand what the real irreconcilable differences are. That is how rational men and women do these things.

The position that anyone who might disagree with one for any reason must be insane, evil, stupid or a dupe is not the position of an intelligent adult. To compound that failing with a bald assertion that the objective universe must conform to one's expectations because one believes that it does is inexcusable.

Every field of human endeavor without exception has progressed through rejection of what doesn't work, refinement of what somewhat works and innovation to find new things that work. There is no place in any of this for wishful thinking or mindless dogmatism.

Oh yeah!? Where's my jacket!? You took my jacket and I want it back!!!

*figure since you're gonna go off in left field I might as well too*

[JesseJames]

Wow, this thread keeps going and going.
I can see both viewpoints.
But ultimately, it's about what the individual values most. They are both valid viewpoints. One is idealistic and humanistic; the other is realistic and pragmatic.
Unfortunately, there are elements in both camps that hold the almost comical stereotypical view of the other. The radical leftist commie spittle-spewing anti-gun effete hippie; versus the tin-foil hat wearing paranoid gun-nut uncouth rube right-winger.

I can appreciate the anti-gun point of view. "We're just trying to make it a safer world for everybody", yeah well, it's a dangerous world and will always be a dangerous world. I'd rather be prepared than put my faith in an overtaxed system. Hurricane Katrina was a painful reminder.
"What about children playing with guns?!", Back in my day kids didn't play with guns because THEY KNEW BETTER. Only idiots did that. The best thing to do in my opinion is to demystify firearms and instill a sense of respect for