Why are antis?


PDA






Zundfolge
July 20, 2003, 02:20 PM
So why do you guys think your rank and file, street level antis are anti?

I'm not talking about Sarah Brady or other leaders in the gun control movement, I'm talking about the person on the street who may not even get involved in gun control causes, but still believe gun control is a good idea.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why are antis?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pax
July 20, 2003, 02:28 PM
All the above, none of the above.

Folks are individuals and have individual reasons for believing and doing the things they do.

Every one of the reasons given would work for some members of the group. None of the reasons would work for all (or even most) of them.

pax

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. -- James Thurber

Zundfolge
July 20, 2003, 02:33 PM
Pax, thats a valid point, however I do believe that one of those choices is more indicative of the main reason the majority of antis are anti ... too bad the forum software doesn't allow "ranking" polls because I do believe that most of those apply in one degree or another to the majority of antis.

MessedUpMike
July 20, 2003, 03:17 PM
I'll vote to of the main reasons working in tandem. Firstly the number of people who have grown up with no exposure to firearms gets larger all of the time. all they know about fireamrs is what they see in the movies and from TV. This leads to an irrational fear of guns by not knowing what they are about. Because of this they are easily duped by the other anti's who are simply reinforcing the (wrong) information the people have already picked up.
A third group that I can't really catagorize here are people like my monster-in-law who hates guns because the liberals tell her to an she follows the party line with no thought what so ever on her own. Mind you this is the same woman who swore to me that the Kent State shooting was a government supported murder, and lost sleep worrying that the war in Chechnyia was "going to go nuclear":barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

It's interesting how the people who yell the loudest about being able to think for themselves are the ones who do it the least.

4v50 Gary
July 20, 2003, 03:20 PM
I voted other. Why? Because it's a little bit of each that make the cumulative total.

Zedicus
July 20, 2003, 04:12 PM
Same answer as 4v50 Gary had, but thy can also be 100% of one or 50%/50% of two etc etc...

Moparmike
July 20, 2003, 04:40 PM
I have to agree that there is no one reason why they are anti. Another reason is that they are never taught that a gun is a tool. A person can be killed by a hammer or a chainsaw or a car just as easily as they can be killed with a gun.

What I want to know is how far the outlawing will go before someone says "STOP!". I think that it will be somewhere in between banning rocks and banning your hands, if it were up to some of the liberals I have seen. (Anyone caught having hands without a license will be imprisoned and be freed of the burden of having illegal apendages...)

Standing Wolf
July 20, 2003, 05:42 PM
I believe people who are active rather than merely passive or indifferent anti-Second Amendment bigots have deep psychological problems. I've known a few of them. They've all had very controlling personalities. They've all been pretenders. They've all been snoops. They've all been dishonest in jobs and personal relationships. The few I've known very well have been ruled by fear, and it's been apparent they're most afraid of the deep dark ugly secrets and demons within themselves. They seem to try to control others because they fear the things within themselves that are out of control. They seem to project masks or artificial personalities as a way to hide their actual selves, of which they're ashamed. They're very rigid people who perceive everything in strictly black and white terms. Most have temper tantrums if they don't get their way.

Serious anti-Second Amendment bigots, in my experience, are social and psychological cripples.

Keith
July 20, 2003, 06:11 PM
I voted "other". These people are simply stupid, or more precisely; our educational system has thrown logic out the window in favor of rote memorization of facts and these people are the product of that machine. Even "smart" liberals are incapable of applying logic to a problem.

People who can not think properly, tend to want the shortcuts in life and are drawn to liberal politics. I'll give you an example of this lack of thinking that I've never been able to penetrate.

Taxes: In short, the liberal thinks we should just tax those evil corporations and use the money to (insert latest nanny-state program here).
Well.. OK, so you point out that those companies will pass those taxes along to the consumer in the form of more costly commodities, or sell less and employ fewer people - in either case, reducing the buying power of the little guy and forcing more people to need the (insert nanny-state program here).
This doesn't phase the liberal at all - he'll simply deny that business passes taxes on to the consumer. Or (if he had Economics 101 in junior college) state that since more people would need the program, we could simply raise corporate taxes (again) to cover the cost of the additional people forced onto the program by the reduced buying power...
And completely missing the point that this would drive even more people into needing the (insert nanny-state program here).

Circular logic - endless taxation forcing more and more people to need social programs to get by in life.

They simply can't grasp that if we reduced taxation, very few people would need any social programs to get by.
And they can't grasp that squeezing the taxpayer (even indirectly) increases poverty.

And (back on topic) it never occurs to them that the gun laws they advocate do not affect criminals.

It's all part of the same flawed reasoning. A world view made possible because many people can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

Keith

igor
July 20, 2003, 08:50 PM
I see this from within a different society, where all firearms are registered and a theoretical "need" -based application procedure to obtain any must be gone through. Prevalence of firearms in households is according to different sources highest or in top 3 in the Western world despite that - and armed criminal violence occurs very rarely outside purposefully alienated criminal sub-cultures (we have our "1%" dimwits too).

Our "antis" most usually combine the discussion on privately held firearms with their own draft dodging and a wish for us to join the agreement to banish anti-personnel mines. Both arguments they base on an illusion of the blessings of unilateral disarmament :banghead: . So there the discussion immediately goes from an individual to a international level.

The more usual, passively "anti" populace is a result of urbanization and a lessened natural exposure to firearms, mostly in conjunction with hunting. Their diagnosis would be a combination of hoplophobia and a belief that criminal activity could be controlled through legislation. The issue of gun control is currently not very hot, we have it in place to a degree and the legislation was reformed to its current form just a couple of years ago.

Even I, an avid shooter, see some possibility of a... how should I put it... steering effect of legislation on the nature of violent crime. This applies to the Scandinavian societies I well know, the results are there.

Self-evidently the U.S. mileage will vary considerably, so don't bother with your faithful Zippos :what: ! I just have this pet peeve to try and share a comparable view with the few interested. :)

Sean Smith
July 20, 2003, 08:58 PM
Gullibility and irrational fear. The usual sources of idiocy in politics, along with oxygen.

Kamicosmos
July 20, 2003, 09:11 PM
I picked Duped, but I feel it's probably a combination of Duped and Fear.

10-Ring
July 20, 2003, 10:34 PM
Because weak minded people will always follow the loudest voice.

MeekandMild
July 20, 2003, 11:24 PM
I think "hate" is the operational word.

MolonLabe416
July 21, 2003, 12:50 AM
"Individually, we do not bear arms because we are afraid. We bear arms as a declaration of capacity. An armed man can cope - either in the city or in the wilderness - and because he is armed, he is not afraid.

The hoplophobe fears and, yes, hates us, because we are not afraid. We are overwhelmingly "other" than he, and in a way that emphasizes his afflictions."

Jeff Cooper

a9mmfan
July 21, 2003, 02:10 AM
I voted "other" because I believe there are numerous people that really do not care about their cause, as much as they just want to be in control. Over the past ten years the gun control crowd has experienced their fare share of success. This seems to entice the "I just want to be in control" crowd even more.

Malone LaVeigh
July 21, 2003, 02:25 AM
The arrogance displayed by the responses so far and the very nature of the question can only be equalled by those on the other side that view every gun owner as a knuckle-dragging, beer-swilling, uneducated redneck. Guess what? There are people out there that have looked at the issues and just happen to disagree with you. You have a choice. You can dismiss them all in this patronizing manner, assuming that all of their motives are from ignorance or evil. Or you can try opening up a dialogue of honest, open communication.

We all know how well the first choice works.

45King
July 21, 2003, 12:54 PM
I believe that anti's are anti because of intellectual weakness: they either can't or won't see the world as it is, and because of this defect, try to shape it into their vision of "Utopia." Their weakness precludes their being able to see that the world never has been, is not, and never will be a safe place. "Utopia" is nothing more than wishful thinking, and any attempts to achieve it will be counter productive. But they don't know that, and refuse to believe it.

Some can be lead away from this thinking by the establishing of certain facts; some can be lead away by other means. There is a hard core of anti's who will never change their beliefs. Those are permanently locked into a mindset that will probably never change.

Mostly Harmless
July 21, 2003, 01:24 PM
I think this JPFO article (http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm) says it best.

If we're talking about the active antis.

If we're talking about joe and jane sixpack, it's a combination of (media-inspired) fear and lack of familiarity.

I didn't grow up around guns and learning to shoot as an adult, even though it was something I wanted to do a lot, came with a load of "ooh it's scary and dangerous" baggage.

I still wouldn't sleep with one under my pillow -- in the bedside cabinet, but not under the pillow :)

J.

Keith
July 21, 2003, 01:52 PM
RAJ,

Yeah, right on! It isn't just one-issue blindness - it's much larger than that. It's one thing to miss the fact that freedom, safety and prosperity can not simply be legislated into existence, but it's quite to miss the more important fact that to try and achieve this through empowering government is to regulate an ever-increasing part of your life. This (in the long run) means throwing away the very things you are trying to achieve.

You can't have freedom if every aspect of your life and business is heavily regulated. You can't have safety if you aren't allowed to exercise your own self-defense. You can't have prosperity if you must pay for all of this control with onerous taxation.

It's the great warm myth of the nanny-state that gives you everything you want while "someone else" has to pay for it. Just don't examine the details very closely.

Keith

Sunray
July 21, 2003, 02:00 PM
It's their raging stupidity that leads them to believe everything they see on TV and in movies is true. And there's the people who think their government will look after them no matter what.
"... still wouldn't sleep with one under my pillow -- in the bedside cabinet, but not under the pillow..." Mostly, what do you think it's going to do? In the 30 plus years I've owned firearms, not once have I seen one jump up and start shooting. Not even when I lived in the slums of Guelph and had one under my pillow.
"...opening up a dialogue of honest, open communication..." Malone, this is very difficult to do with people who don't respect you opinion in the first place. If you read the rhetoric that comes out of the anti-firearm clubs, you'll see they consistently use scare tactics, bandy about statistics that are misleading and outright untrue. You'll also notice how many of them will buy a firearm, sometimes illegally like Sarah Brady did, and still rant about how bad it is for you to own one. And the D.C. media hack who raved how bad firearms are only to himself shoot some kid for swimming in his back yard pool. I think his gun was illegally owned too. Seems they think there should be one law for them and one for everybody else. How do you talk rationally to irrational people?

blades67
July 21, 2003, 02:04 PM
Other = All of the Above.

waynzwld
July 21, 2003, 02:21 PM
I chose "other".

It is a combination of all of the above, plus I beleive there is a psychological disorder with antis. The JPFO covers it pretty well, but the total disconnect with reality, shown by antis makes me think they are in some way clinically insane.

Bobarino
July 21, 2003, 02:29 PM
i tend to think its the media only reporting on the evil done with guns and not a word reported on lives saved or good deeds accomplished or the sporting aspect of firearms. i have no facts to back that up, its just an opinion/observation.

Bobby

John Ross
July 21, 2003, 02:33 PM
I agree with Standing Wolf's observation. I also agree with Malone LaVeigh that the way the question is raised could be seen as arrogant, although you can argue that that is what the "other" selection is for.

I believe one explanation is what I call the "Rattlesnake/Cyanide" reaction.

Many sensible people would say "I don't want a rattlesnake in my house for a pet, nor do I want to store cyanide around my home, even though I know it has its uses. I'm not too keen on my neighbors and the families of my kids' classmates having rattlesnakes and cyanide in their homes, either, since we visit sometimes."

Getting into the whole Guns=Freedom thing falls pretty much on deaf ears because these people cannot visualize ever using a gun in self-defense, and suggesting America's future might be like the history of Cambodia seems completely ludicrous.

The fact that some people want to pay for protection instead of providing it themselves (hire police rather than carry a gun) is not in itself reprehensible; I wouldn't dream of doing my own taxes or home renovation. The argument that works with some of these people is would they think a law just if it PROHIBITED me from working on my own house, forced me to rely entirely on government labor, and offered me no recourse when the shoddy government work resulted in my house collapsing or burning down, killing family members?

I have a lot of relatives who are philosophically antis, but not to the point that they would take an active role like lobbying the capitol for more gun laws. They would just vote for more gun laws if given the chance. These people are not hateful or stupid; they like the idea of laws and rules and they can't see the terrible things that have happened elsewhere ever happening here.

JR

foghornl
July 21, 2003, 03:00 PM
Other, for both "all above" and "none above".

And for those who have never lived in a "bad area", had to work in a "bad area", and/or never been a victim of violent crime. I have experienced all 3 of those, in addition to having been "Johhny LawMan". They just don't get it.

grampster
July 21, 2003, 03:26 PM
Molone sez "There are people out there who have looked at the issues and just happen to disagree with you." Yep, I agree. They have "looked" at the issues. The problem is that most who only "look" and don't "think" about the issues most generally have a knee jerk reaction to disagree. Mostly those folks always disagree with issues that involve personal freedom and do so without thinking it through because they believe personal freedom is something to fear. I have found most folks like that tend to be of the Liberal left wing (as we understand it today) persuasion. They are more likely to believe Oprah than Benjamin Franklin.

With freedom comes the implication that there will be danger. How could it be otherwise?......."A man who gives up a little freedom to gain a little safety deserves neither" is the paraphrase that best describes the actuality of the contentedness of those folks to give away their freedom for supposed safety. I think that mindset also shows the selfishness of the Lefties because the freedoms that they easily give up usually do not show up in a negative sense till after they are long gone. They cheat their posterity for an ease of living that they actually don't even deserve.

I have also found those that disagree with the element of danger that freedom implies are also quick to become defensive, argumentative, and unwilling to have a rational discussion which might lead to a change of mind or a change of heart. One cannot easily have an open and honest dialogue with folks on the Left for that reason. I am dogmatic about many issues, especially about those that are spelled out in our Constitution and BOR. But at least I am willing to discuss the matter and reason it out. The reality is that I am always right and the discussion turns into where I have to put a couple center of mass to rid the world of another bone head. heh heh.:neener: (trying to keep it firearm related and poor attempt at humor)

grampster

sm
July 21, 2003, 03:35 PM
Voted Other.

Some anti's "rationalize" their viewpoint using some, part, all or addtional reasons in poll, reason vary as do the person's themselves. Degrees vary.

Cyanide- Interesting that John Ross brought that up. Like firearms, I was raised with cyanide around, taught about "the rules" and trusted with its use and storage. We didn't have 'safety' locks on the containers, were educated to have a respect for cyanide. Sitting there cyanide just sat there, it took a human to "implement" its use. If done safely one was fine--If not safely , death.

Anti's lack of education, fueled by pride and ego causes a fear of the unknown. Pride and Ego exponentially raises the fear to various levels...to some a fevour. Easier to be in "mob riot mentality" than to seek answers. Pride and ego foribids this. And just like the riot mob ,others are needed to join in to perpetuate-lest that question of uncertainty of being "uneducated" should come to surface and beg to be investigated.


(Forgive me pax, but I have to share a quote here.)

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." --Herbert Spencer

Matt1911
July 21, 2003, 04:46 PM
I am surprised more did not pick the "bigot"choice.Seems like every rabid anti I have ever had the misfortune to run into,thier firstwords are along the lines of "pick-up truck mentality",or "redneck"....
And just as some call Bush a "cowboy",i fail to see the insult.

Ol' Badger
July 21, 2003, 05:49 PM
I had a friend of my Mother find out that I was shooting at the range and she asked me "Why do you hate Black People". No S. She thinks the only reason to pratice is to become good at shooting people of color! Why else would a White Male do something like that. I had nothing to say to this, I just walked away confused as hell.

capt_happypants
July 21, 2003, 06:45 PM
Badger, the friend of your mother was projecting.

If you're not familiar with that term, it means that one projects their taboo feelings and thoughts onto others. Gunowners aren't the ones who are going to light up a crowd of black folk - your mom's friend will.

Erik
July 21, 2003, 10:25 PM
Deluded hoplophobes

Zundfolge
July 22, 2003, 02:02 AM
I'm honestly surprised so few people have checked "The Partisans".

If I had to rank them in order I'd put them like this...

The Duped
The Partisans
The Bigots
Other
The Hopolophobes (I dunno, but to me this notion that antis are just mentaly ill, while it sounds appealing, I just have a hard time with it).


At any rate, I do think that we need to know why our enemy thinks/acts/votes the way they do if we ever hope to convert or defeat them.

six 4 sure
July 22, 2003, 02:36 AM
Sadly I think most fall in the “if you scream loud enough and long enough” people believe what you say, for good or bad.

six

dustind
July 22, 2003, 07:30 PM
4, then one, small space, then 2 and 3, which are pretty close together.

Ignorance is our bigest enemy and the media's and anti gun leaders biggest advantage. They even admit to lieing and duping people, but we already know that, still makes me mad though.

HBK
July 22, 2003, 11:46 PM
I picked other, but if some of them are anti because they thought it through and had rational conversations with each other and came to the incorrect conclusion that guns are bad and evil...I would have to go with just plain stupid.

carp killer
July 23, 2003, 12:18 AM
The anti's I have known have learned to fear what they are not familiar with. They just have not been exposed to firearms. What they know of guns is learned from TV and what people of authority(LEO'S) have told them. The anti's think that the inanimate object has a life of its own. That just having one in the house, you are more likely to die or some other such trash science. I see a gun and unless it is something I'm interested in, I think, so what. A gun is just a tool.

GSB
July 23, 2003, 09:00 AM
Having talked to a few antis, when you scratch the surface, it's almost always an irrational fear of guns. Everything else is just rationalization layered over top of a phobia.

jmtgsx
July 23, 2003, 02:30 PM
"Gullibility and irrational fear. The usual sources of idiocy in politics, along with oxygen.
__________________
Sean Smith"

Wow Sean, what an impressive quote! I would like to add that to my signature lin with your permission. I'll give you credit ! :D

I voted "Other" . I believe the liberal media bias just grinds them down when they here about "another senseless shooting....Film at 11:00." night after night, week after week for years. Air coverage of a "sensible shooting"? or "An armed citizen defended his wife and child from two scumbags tonight without having to fire a shot." Where are those stories?

RandyB
July 23, 2003, 03:55 PM
We fear what we do not understand. Lakc of education, media hype, and "wanting to be more civilized/refined/etc." all plays a part. My wife when we were dating was traumatized by the fact that I carried a gun. She still doesn't like it, but realized if it came down to the guns or her, she'd lose.

Byron Quick
July 25, 2003, 02:41 AM
You can dismiss them all in this patronizing manner, assuming that all of their motives are from ignorance or evil. Or you can try opening up a dialogue of honest, open communication.

Malone,

Answer a question for me, if you can. I will stipulate that there are many well meaning people who happen to be for gun control. What puzzles me are the ones who write the laws for gun control. After what, 80 years of gun control laws they have yet to write one law that facilitates their stated purpose. I don't think they're stupid. So what's their purpose since if it's their stated purpose then they would be stupid and they aren't?

Another thing: I got mailings from HCI back in 1986 after the amendment to the Volkmer-McClure Act prohibited the future production of machineguns for citizens. Why were they hopping up and down? After all, their stated purpose is to reduce gun violence...and registered machineguns had not been responsible but for one (reportedly by a policeman) in 52 years?

One more item: To judge by the vitriol with which gun owners are portrayed in places like DU...why are we supposed to think they're not ignorant and evil?

Malone LaVeigh
July 25, 2003, 03:43 AM
I honestly don't know what motivates anyone to believe what they believe, including myself. There are equally good arguments for determinism and mechanical causality. Somehow everyone believes that our motives are pure and our beliefs based on sound, rational thought while they are all evil, thoughtless herd creatures or mentally ill. Even if that were true (and I'm not going to dream I can convince anyone here otherwise) it's a useless way to approach trying to make a difference in anyone's opinions. And as long as we live in any kind of representative political system, the opinions of our fellow citizens matter.

Byron Quick
July 25, 2003, 03:55 AM
OK, you answered my third question. How about the first two?


The only answer I can see to the first is that the authors of these bills have a goal that they are hiding. Since the laws they are coming up with do not attain the stated goal of controlling criminals and since the authors are not stupid people...could it be that their goal is to increase government control of the populace incrementally? Leading to what end?

Now before you get your hackles up over a supposed attack on the pure hearts of liberals, be aware that I see little difference between a Democratic liberal and a Republican conservative. They have big fights over how much control government should exert over which areas of our lives. They are in total agreement that government should control our lives.
From my viewpoint, you could consider a liberal to be the head of a quarter and a conservative to be the tail of a quarter. Flip it and it is of little note if it lands heads up or tails up...it's still a quarter.

What about HCI's action in 1986?

AZLibertarian
July 25, 2003, 11:36 AM
As much as each of the options in the poll are valid, I guess "Other" is most appropriate as I see it. The 'flip' side of this poll--to use Byron's "quarter" analogy--would be to poll the reasons that each of us believe as we individually do. IMO, while the likely "A,B,C,D" choices might all each have some merit, when it came to answering truthfully, our answers would most likely be some blend of "All of the Above".

Personally, I think most of the Anti's perspective comes from a failure to accept responsibility over their lives. When someone dings their car door in a parking lot, they want the perp to pay, rather than accept that parking your car in a common lot entails such a risk. When they get injured in an accident, they file a lawsuit for the medical costs as well as "pain and suffering" damages [whatever that means], instead of accepting that everything one does after getting out of bed can be a risk. When Islamist terrorists slam airplanes into buildings, they want to know why the intelligence agencies failed to pick up on this threat, rather than remembering that the predictions that America will eventually become a terrorist's target have been coming out of nearly every intelligence analyst's mouth since the late '60's. The Anti's have somehow gotten the idea in their heads that God--if they believe in God-- has said that they're entitled to a comfortable, care-free life, and that anytime they're made the least bit uncomfortable, someone must pay. It never dawns on the Anti's that the current level of comfort, safety, and security in their lives is very much the result of their own individual actions or inactions.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why are antis?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!