Strange Thought about Anti-Gun Mindset


PDA






jakemccoy
September 4, 2008, 06:38 PM
Think about this one for a second before responding right away.

Do you think guns would be more acceptable in the general populace if they didn't make a noise when fired? And I don't mean muffled suppressor sound. I mean zero sound. Imagine if a combat knife made a loud explosion sound every time it went to cut something. I think there generally would be equal or more objections to knives.

Anyway, that's my strange thought for the day.

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange Thought about Anti-Gun Mindset" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
blackcash88
September 4, 2008, 06:58 PM
I don't think so. People are afraid of them for much more than just the noise. They will still understand that the end result is the same with or without noise.

Owen Sparks
September 4, 2008, 06:59 PM
Yes!

I read somewhere in a psychology book that human beings are born with a natural fear of only two things, loud noises and falling.
I can't help but think that many of todays anti-gun advocates were the same little five year old girls who got upset and cried when it thundered.

DigitalWarrior
September 4, 2008, 07:01 PM
I still cry when it thunders :)

TAB
September 4, 2008, 07:05 PM
I think it would help with the "fear" of them.

Cel
September 4, 2008, 07:08 PM
People have told me that they are scared of guns directly because of the noise. So yes, I think they would be accepted more if they were not so loud.

Owen Sparks
September 4, 2008, 07:15 PM
Makes you wonder if silencers weren't illegal, would they be required? Sort of like mufflers on cars are required to supress obnoxious noise.

PTK
September 4, 2008, 07:22 PM
Silencers aren't, and never have been, illegal. :)


I always make sure that new shooters only use my silenced guns at their first range outing unless they ask to try other items.

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 07:23 PM
In August, I took a lady friend of mine to the range.
Now, she wasn't an anti, but she wasn't exactly on our side.
The sort of person who probably would never touch a gun on her own.
But she is a very rational human being, and she trusted me, so she let me take her to the range.
Afterward, she told me "they're a lot quieter than I thought they'd be".
Granted, we were shooting .22s, but still.
Even with cartridges the size of thumbtacks, she was expecting a huge explosion. Of note, the .22 Mags didn't really bother her, either.
She also commented that the recoil wasn't as bad as she was expecting (she must weigh under 95 lbs, so that is quite a statement, still).
Of course, then my friend's dad brought out the .500 S&W for us to watch him fire...
That pretty much satisfied her expectations.

jakemccoy
September 4, 2008, 07:26 PM
The best analogy I can imagine is a bow and arrow. There doesn't seem to be a general fear of a bow and arrow. However, they can be equally or more deadly.

Oana
September 4, 2008, 07:28 PM
Interesting question. You could be right. On the other hand, you have to get very close with a knife, unlike a gun. If guns were completely silent, a criminal has the advantage of being able to shoot from a great distance without alerting anybody. A gunshot gives warning to any bystanders that something's going on. So I'd say it's a toss-up.

Offhand, though, I bet it would help with the knee-jerk fear reaction. If there were no recoil, either, I think people would be even less scared.

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 07:30 PM
The best analogy I can imagine is a bow and arrow. There doesn't seem to be a general fear of a bow and arrow. However, they can be equally or more deadly.
Only the most deadly arrows are more effective than the least effective firearms.

blackcash88
September 4, 2008, 07:31 PM
The best analogy I can imagine is a bow and arrow. There doesn't seem to be a general fear of a bow and arrow. However, they can be equally or more deadly.

That's a horrible analogy. :rolleyes:

Seriously, when's the last time anyone heard about someone being killed with an arrow? See a lot of bangers in your area carrying concealed bows and committing "arrow violence"? Bows are VERY obscure outside the hunting world and it takes a LOT more skill to hit with a bow than it does a gun. Stupid...

jakemccoy
September 4, 2008, 07:32 PM
Nolo, you were wearing ear protection, right?

The single mother on the street level apartment who hears a shooting outside would not be wearing ear protection. I bet if that mother read about a bow and arrow attack the next day, then she still wouldn't have a sudden fear of bow and arrows like she would a gun.

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 07:32 PM
If there were no recoil, either,
Well, if you're gonna go that route, you might as well hope that people will live in peace and prosperity under the grand banner of hippitude.
Do not slight the Great Newton.

jakemccoy
September 4, 2008, 07:33 PM
Only the most deadly arrows are more effective than the least effective firearms.

OK, even still, compare a quality bow with a wimpy but nice .22lr pistol. Walk around town openly with each in San Francisco on different days. Do you want to take a bet what would happen?

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 07:35 PM
Nolo, you were wearing ear protection, right?
I made her wear it. I wasn't (we had only one set. :uhoh:).
She's not a moron, she's one of the brightest people I know.
I showed her the rifles and the cartridges, so I'm sure she gauged beforehand how she thought they would sound. I'm pretty sure she would take into account the old, mostly worthless muffs we had, too.
Still surprised her, and still speaks to where a lot of the fear comes from.
I'm sure most of us have developed even a small flinch before.
You know where that comes from?
FEAR.

Oana
September 4, 2008, 07:37 PM
Well, if you're gonna go that route, you might as well hope that people will live in peace and prosperity under the grand banner of hippitude.
Do not slight the Great Newton.

:D Purely fantasy, I assure you. I figured since we were doing a "what if", it was fair game. :p

novaDAK
September 4, 2008, 07:42 PM
Walk around town openly with each in San Francisco on different days. Do you want to take a bet what would happen?
You will get police attention with both.
Hell...a few months ago there was a guy caught outside of the US Capitol with a sword and shotgun dressed all in black like a ninja. I'm not kidding.

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 07:42 PM
You're splitting hairs and missing the point.
Not missing the point.
I know what you're saying, I just think that asserting that the bow and arrow is as, if not more deadly is fallacious.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
The most advanced, most powerful hand-held bow and arrow (that I know of, I am no expert) is, all things considered, roughly equivalent in killing power to a .30-30, at best a medium-power cartridge (depending on where you end the power scale. .300 WM? .50 BMG? 20mm Lahti?).
You are correct in the proposition that noise bears a lot of the fear of firearm hoplophobia, but it's silly to use a false statement to back that up.

TAB
September 4, 2008, 07:42 PM
Silencers aren't, and never have been, illegal.


depends on the state.

PTK
September 4, 2008, 07:43 PM
Federally, then. :)

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 07:45 PM
Purely fantasy, I assure you. I figured since we were doing a "what if", it was fair game.
It's not so far-fetched to envision firearms that make little, if no noise.
Just look at a suppressed .300 Whisper.
Actually, it ain't all that hard to envision weapons with no recoil, either. The Atchisson AA-12, Ultimak 100 and Stoner LMG are testaments to that.

Oana
September 4, 2008, 07:49 PM
Bows & arrows are now considered part of the past and associated with people like Robin Hood. They're just as deadly as guns, but they're not perceived that way anymore. Plus, you can't exactly stuff a bow and a few arrows into your pocket for an evening stroll - unless you're slinking in the shadows, everyone knows what you're carrying!

Now, take yourself back 600 years or so to the heyday of the longbow in Europe. I bet you'd find a VERY different perception!

(Minor nitpick: bows aren't completely silent, either...)

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 07:50 PM
TWANG!!!
:neener:

Geronimo45
September 4, 2008, 07:51 PM
Do you think guns would be more acceptable in the general populace if they didn't make a noise when fired?
Maybe so. Same probably goes for motorcycles, now that you mention it...

jakemccoy
September 4, 2008, 07:53 PM
Not missing the point.
I know what you're saying, I just think that asserting that the bow and arrow is as, if not more deadly is fallacious.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
The most advanced, most powerful hand-held bow and arrow (that I know of, I am no expert) is, all things considered, roughly equivalent in killing power to a .30-30, at best a medium-power cartridge (depending on where you end the power scale. .300 WM? .50 BMG? 20mm Lahti?).
You are correct in the proposition that noise bears a lot of the fear of firearm hoplophobia, but it's silly to use a false statement to back that up.

Here's the comparison to consider so that we don't argue the details:

Quality bow vs. Big black semi-auto .22lr pistol

Now, consider your average emotional anti-gun person. Which weapon would they be more hysterical over? What's the reason for the difference in reaction?

My hypothesis is the noise is the reason. They're conditioned to fear the sharp sound of the explosion.

Being able to conceal the .22lr pistol is irrelevant. If the anti walks into your house and sees the .22lr pistol next to the bow, the fear will be greater for the pistol.

jakemccoy
September 4, 2008, 07:57 PM
(Minor nitpick: bows aren't completely silent, either...)
That's a good point actually. I'd argue that the slight sound is proportional to the fear, ie, the fear is small.

blackcash88
September 4, 2008, 07:59 PM
Nolo, what's a "hand held bow"? Do you mean crossbow as a parallel to hand gun? Technically, all firearms that don't require a mount are "hand held" be they a pistol, rifle, etc.

bogie
September 4, 2008, 08:01 PM
I'll tell you what scares the crap outta me - saws.

Chainsaws.

Circular saws.

Table saws.

Anything that someone's removed a safety device from.

That crap can kill you.

Guns? Not scared. Safe.

blackcash88
September 4, 2008, 08:02 PM
If the anti walks into your house and sees the .22lr pistol next to the bow, the fear will be greater for the pistol.

If the guy's proficient with a bow, I'd MUCH rather be shot with a .22lr from a pistol than take a broad head tipped arrow through the chest at close range. The wound channel would be MUCH more devastating. :what:

Same goes for a crossbow bolt with a broad head tip.

TAB
September 4, 2008, 08:03 PM
Bogie, if you fallow all the safety rulls with saws, you are just as safe using them as you are using a gun.

elChupacabra!
September 4, 2008, 08:06 PM
Man I think you really are on to something. The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to disagree with you...

Think about horror movies - most any will do - the most frightening parts are often when a loud crash, or a quick blaring of the orchestra, or whatever accompanies a visual image that, on it's own, wouldn't be that scary. As for me, at least, I'm going to be more startled by the noise than the image, probably 9 times out of 10...

Which really does make alot of sense when you apply that to guns...

Blues Brother
September 4, 2008, 08:07 PM
Now if we can only convince the gun fearing public to wear ear plugs 24/7/365

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 4, 2008, 08:12 PM
Interesting to think about.

I have a neighbor a few houses down who :fire:hates:fire: guns, shooting, etc.

Let me have a skunk problem and let me try to shoot them and this neighbor has a fit. I've spoken to her and told her "if you ever hear a gun go off, I am aiming at something totally safe and am pointing the gun into the ground, or into my woods - I never aim toward your house."

The other day I took four shots out back with my 500 Magnum and I could hear her yell "HEY" through my Pro-Ears amplified earmuffs.

However, all that being said, let it be 4th of July and she is sending up all kinds of rockets, mortars, lighting firecrackers, etc. WHICH ARE ALL ILLEGAL TO PUT INTO OPERATION IN MY STATE (you can buy them, you just need a pyrotechnics license to use them, that's all). Anything I'm doing with ANY of my guns is COMPLETELY LEGAL!

Go figure!

tigre
September 4, 2008, 09:48 PM
I still cry when it thunders :)
LOL. :D Thanks for that, it's been a long day.


I'm with bogie on the saw thing. They do freak me out a little. Just heard too many bad stories. In fact, when I was talking to a few of my friends/coworkers who said they were scared of guns, the first thing that popped into my head what that I knew a lot more people who'd been hurt with saws than with guns. That actually seemed to make sense to one of them, but the others are hopeless.

Nolo
September 4, 2008, 11:46 PM
Here's the comparison to consider so that we don't argue the details:

Quality bow vs. Big black semi-auto .22lr pistol

Now, consider your average emotional anti-gun person. Which weapon would they be more hysterical over? What's the reason for the difference in reaction?

My hypothesis is the noise is the reason. They're conditioned to fear the sharp sound of the explosion.

Being able to conceal the .22lr pistol is irrelevant. If the anti walks into your house and sees the .22lr pistol next to the bow, the fear will be greater for the pistol.
Yep, I got it.
And that is a (roughly) fair comparison.
However, when you made the earlier statement about the ENTIRE spectrum of both types of weapons. Firearms span a much larger power range than bows and arrows.
I agree with the argument, I become concerned when you use support that allows an anti to sneak in there and divert the conversation away from the real topic.
Gotta have watertight arguments.
That's my point.
Yours is quite valid, and I got it.

Officers'Wife
September 4, 2008, 11:51 PM
Hi Jakemccoy,

My uncle used to tell stories of when he was involved in something called a 'snatch mission' he would often carry a bow. His claim was there was nothing that would lower the enemy's morale like waking up in the morning and finding their sentries with an arrow through his throat.

It may or may not be true but the moral would pretty much say noise is not a factor.

Selena

Officers'Wife
September 4, 2008, 11:55 PM
Hi Nolo,

Only the most deadly arrows are more effective than the least effective firearms.


Hmm, General Custer might disagree with that.

Selena

Loomis
September 5, 2008, 12:00 AM
A better comparison would be a cross bow vs a single shot rimfire rifle. I think the fear factor would not be very much different. Slightly more fear of the rifle by the average gun ignorant person. But I personally would be more afraid of the person carrying the crossbow. Why? because I think the crossbow guy is more likely to be some kind of whackjob.

Nolo
September 5, 2008, 12:03 AM
Hmm, General Custer might disagree with that.
When compared alongside modern firearms, bows are woefully ineffective weapons.
Take a 9x19mm carbine.
This is probably the least effective combat firearm one might find.
With ball ammo, it can reach to 200 meters.
This the the MAXIMUM effective range of the longbow (considered to be the most effective non-mechanical bow), and even then, only in volley fire and with great skill.
Even modern compound bows cannot greatly exceed the overall numbers of a 9x19mm carbine.
To put it simply:
Bows < Firearms
Can you find firearms that are much less effective than bows?
Yes.
But even a .22LR pistol has advantages, such as ease of use and accuracy.
With hollowpoint defensive ammo, it even rivals the killing power of most bows.

tigre
September 5, 2008, 12:22 AM
My uncle used to tell stories of when he was involved in something called a 'snatch mission' he would often carry a bow. His claim was there was nothing that would lower the enemy's morale like waking up in the morning and finding their sentries with an arrow through his throat.

It may or may not be true but the moral would pretty much say noise is not a factor.
It seems like there may be a difference between the views of trained soldiers in a combat situation and people who have rarely or never been around guns.

Kids shoot bows and arrows at summer camp. They operate in a simple manner and it's easy to see that if someone doesn't perform specific actions it isn't going to do anything. Most people with limited exposure to guns don't know exactly how they operate. They just know that they're loud and they recoil a lot and there are lots of stories in the media about how dangerous they are. You don't read much about "bow and arrow violence" these days though, so it's just sort of an interesting piece of sporting equipment. It seems like there would be a range of relative scariness from long bows to crossbows though, just as there is from, say, antique revolvers to EBRs

Triphammer
September 5, 2008, 12:44 AM
Aw, c'mon. Everybody KNOWS a bow can't go looking for someone to shoot on there own!

Kind of Blued
September 5, 2008, 02:37 AM
Weird thought number 2:

What if every gun sounded like a baby giggling when fired?

:uhoh:

neviander
September 5, 2008, 02:44 AM
I like your reasoning, but sadly no, the main abhorrence of guns in any culture is the compact power that guns provide and either the power hungry politicians that want ALL the power, or the blind, inept citizens that want the power hungry politicians to have all the power, providing paths to tyranny.

neviander :D

ColinthePilot
September 5, 2008, 02:55 AM
I'd put money on the anti's going the same route with suppressors as they have with so many other characteristics of firearms. .50's are too big. But .22 pocket pistols are too concealable. Scoped rifles are too accurate, but cheap guns aren't accurate enough. So in that vein, suppressors make guns too quiet, too stealthy, too covert.

The lack of noise will not convert anti's. Nor will archery, especially if shooters turn to the bow for defense after the anti's get their way. Then they won't be anti-gun anymore, but anti-archery.

Loomis
September 5, 2008, 09:39 AM
I think anytime in history when people build large cities, the city dwellers eventually become terrified of weapons and start to imagine themselves superior to those that would contemplate self defense.

We have reached a point in time when unprecedented percentages of populations are now city dwellers. That's going to have an impact.

Nickotym
September 5, 2008, 11:11 AM
Those saying bows are not very deadly have never hunted with them. Trust me, I would rather be shot once with a .22LR than once with a broadhead tipped arrow.

Pulsar
September 5, 2008, 11:46 AM
I agree with Nickotym

also bows require a lot more skill than any firearm to become efficient with

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2008, 01:23 PM
Hi Nolo,

When compared alongside modern firearms, bows are woefully ineffective weapons.


I hate blanket statements. Effectiveness depends on situation and terrain. In a situation where you have say twenty or thirty armed hostiles and you must depend on stealth for your survival, the bow, the javelin or the knife is far superior. Again quoting my late uncle, there are no useless weapons, only fighters without imagination.

Selena

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2008, 01:25 PM
Hi Loomis,

I think anytime in history when people build large cities, the city dwellers eventually become terrified of weapons and start to imagine themselves superior to those that would contemplate self defense.

I think you are far closer to the truth of the problem.

Selena

Nolo
September 5, 2008, 05:07 PM
I hate blanket statements. Effectiveness depends on situation and terrain. In a situation where you have say twenty or thirty armed hostiles and you must depend on stealth for your survival, the bow, the javelin or the knife is far superior. Again quoting my late uncle, there are no useless weapons, only fighters without imagination.
It's not that there aren't niches where bows excel, but you can always tell what has clear superiority by what is used.
Firearms are used, unilaterally, in warfare.
Bows are not.
There are VERY small counter-examples (SEALS using bows in Vietnam).
Blanket statements have their uses.
Bows are effective weapons.
Firearms are SIGNIFICANTLY more effective weapons, in general.
The problem that I had with the original statement was not that bows are NEVER better than firearms, because that's not true. It was that, if you take the entire range of ability, firearms come out on top in nearly every area of construction, counter to the statement.
Bows win hands-down, no matter the situation in one area, though:
Ease of construction (without infrastructure).

Blofeld
September 5, 2008, 06:56 PM
People (you know the ones) buy fake silencers for P22 pistols. The chunk of aluminum serves one purpose: make my P22 look sinister.

People Duracoat EBRs into happy colors. Periwinkle and lavender AK: less sinister.

Small wiry guy with a 3.75" Benchmade, a solid stance, and some scarring on his forearms: harmless looking but deadly.

Tall thin guy with a trench coat and an officially liscensed Highlander katana:deadly looking but harmless.

Fireworks exploding in the sky: pretty.

Fireworks in a box next to your drunk brother in law trying desperately to light his cigarette: scary.

OOOXOOO
September 6, 2008, 02:12 AM
I belive they ban guns because they are effective.

Ohio Gun Guy
September 7, 2008, 12:30 AM
Psychology 101 (My theory anyway)

I find that the most hard core "Anti's" have very hard set positions on things that are the result pure emotion and/or the lack of understanding about guns & other things. They are very emotional and can not rationally explain thier positions and will not engage in any conversation about them (Or truely listen to what you are saying, they may be willing to repeat what they "KNOW"). It is 100% emotion. They are not logical people, thats why logic (History, Stastics, FACTS) do not register, effect, or sway them. If you can disprove something, they will just keep repeating thier position, constantly rephrase it, or shut down in a fit of anger/frustration.

If it is about the boom, its about the emotional impact of the boom. And their resulting confusion, because it is foreign to them, and they are not interested in learning about it. Your friend in being willing to go shooting is likely not one of the above (IE, showed a willingnes to discuss, engage)

tigre
September 7, 2008, 12:44 AM
They are not logical people, thats why logic (History, Stastics, FACTS) do not register, effect, or sway them.
The funny thing is, they can be very logical about other subjects, but have a sort of cognitive dissonance on this particular subject. There are lots of intelligent people who just have funny ideas about one thing or another and there's not much point in arguing. A few of my coworkers are serious antis, and have admitted to being afraid of guns. Not people with guns, but guns themselves. These people are scientists, who know very well how statistics can be manipulated and understand lots of complicated things, but are scared of a chunk of metal that can be used to poke holes in things. It is absolutely emotional, and probably influenced by the media to a large extent, but people can be very intelligent and still have certain areas where they just won't listen.

ragtopdog
September 7, 2008, 05:54 AM
There is no doubt that I would not pick up my colt saa .45 first, but if I had no choice a bow would be just fine. Ever see what a broadhead can do? Sometimes I get to thinking if the SHTF, what in the long run would I rather have? Ii'll take my bow and be real quiet and keep my eyes open. Try one some day. If you like guns you will like bows.

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange Thought about Anti-Gun Mindset" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!