Do most antis have reasons for being anti?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

Charleo0192
May 17, 2011, 12:43 PM
Recently while moving I asked my sister if she could take one my guns up to my room. She had a confused look on her face. She then asked why I had a gun. I asked her why not. Her next statement was "why do you". That let me know she had no genuine idea why she felt I should not own a gun.

This got me thinking. Do you find most people who are anti-gun to just be unknowledgeable about the topic?

I'm sure this topic has come up but te conversation I had with her surprised me the most as she couldn't think of any reason why I should not be allowed to own a firearm.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nushif
May 17, 2011, 12:47 PM
I find most people have plenty of reasons for believing what they do and for doing what they do.
Otherwise they wouldn't right?

Personally, I think the notion that anyone who is opposed to guns is by default uninformed or "doesn't know the truth" is a very, very slippery slope. People may have very good reasons for being against private gun ownership. You or me just don't share them.

M-Cameron
May 17, 2011, 01:00 PM
now im not a psychologist....but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

there are two primary reasons......the fear approach and the learned approach


the fear approach is exactly what it sounds like........they are afraid of guns, just they same way people are afraid of bugs, the dark, heights, ect.

like many fears, they are irrational responses to a previous event usually something that happened in their youth.....

example, a child falls out of a tree and ends up in the hospital, they grow up with a fear of heights.

a similar thing could happen with a firearm.




then there is the learned approach( which is more than likely the most common)

this is much like racism......they are told all their lives that XXXX are bad, to stay away from XXXX, or that XXXX will hurt you if you go near them.

if they are taught nothing else about XXXX, what reason would they have to question it.

the same applies to firearms.

and that is why logic doesnt work on antis.........i mean, has logic ever worked on any racist?



very few truly anti-gun people have a rational argument as to why they dont like guns.

seuadr
May 17, 2011, 02:13 PM
some anti's are irrational. My wife would qualify for that. She isn't exactly an anti that would be for outright banning guns, but she doesn't like them. She understands that firearms are a part of my life, and tolerates it, but i truly believe that if some dude kicked in the door intent on doing her harm she would go for a knife or baseball bat rather than pick up one of my guns to defend herself.

I say her feelings are irrational because she comes from a big gun family, from a town in the middle of nowhere where hunting and guns are basically part of the culture. Everyone in her family except her owns and enjoys guns. She was never forced to learn to shoot, and she never had a bad experience with firearms as a child. she just doesn't like them. she seems to think that the only reason you would ever want to own a handgun is to kill someone. Granted, she understands that even though i own a handgun, I am not going to be going out and killing people, yet she still holds on to that irrationality.

:shrugs: sometimes it is just how people are wired.

M-Cameron
May 17, 2011, 02:27 PM
and she never had a bad experience with firearms as a child.

that:
1) you know of....
2) she will admit....
3) she even remembers....

an 'incident' doesnt need to be something dramatic or life threatening.... often times it can be something as simple as dropping a rifle on your foot....or pinching your finger in the action.....its something simple like that that can teach the brain that XXXX is bad and not to go near it.

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 17, 2011, 03:20 PM
Some people just blindly follow something they are told without anything backing it up. Think about it, are the true antis have anything that makes sense backing up their arguments?

cavman
May 17, 2011, 03:40 PM
Do you find most people who are anti-gun to just be unknowledgeable about the topic?

about a month ago at lunch break between Centerfire and .45 matches during a Bullseye match, I talked with a New Yorker who had moved from NY about 5-10 years ago.

We had a similar discussion. When I asked him what was "wrong" with NYC people he said it was "ignorance". Delving deeper, he said it was actually "mis-information".

They knew a lot from all that they had read and heard, he said, and had their opinions formed from what they knew. It was in his opinion that what they "knew" was very frequently factually incorrect, however.

oneounceload
May 17, 2011, 03:54 PM
As the news media learned a long time ago from the public educators - "Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it becomes the truth" (or words similar to that)

Guns have been "bad" in those two groups eyes since the 60's with the assassinations of several well-liked political folks, and even earlier in some locales because of political power (hard to control those freedom-loving upstarts when they are armed and can overthrow the tyrant)

Funny how, not long ago, kids used to take their guns to school so they could hunt on the way home - now if little johnny draws a hunting picture or similar, he needs "counseling and several days in time out from school"

Cosmoline
May 17, 2011, 04:18 PM
I find most people have plenty of reasons for believing what they do and for doing what they do. Otherwise they wouldn't right?

You would be surprised. Ignorance is the foundation for the anti-gun movement. And remember I'm talking about ignorance, not stupidity. I was also strongly anti-gun before I started learning about firearms. The more you know, the more difficult it becomes to fall for the "cop killer", "gun show loophole", "assault weapon" nonsense. Virtually all of the anti-gun policy positions are based on ignorance of basic firearm mechanics and ballistics. Up to and including the NFA itself. OAL limits, barrel limits and all the features of that law we know and hate are the product of pure fear mongering and ignorance.

This is why anti-gun proponents so rarely speak in any accurate detail about firearms. They invent scary terms of their own instead.

627PCFan
May 17, 2011, 04:19 PM
Here is one I hear quite commonly.......people are scared of the noise....

Cards81fan
May 17, 2011, 04:25 PM
Personally, I think the notion that anyone who is opposed to guns is by default uninformed or "doesn't know the truth" is a very, very slippery slope. People may have very good reasons for being against private gun ownership. You or me just don't share them.

I clicked on this thread to post basically an identical comment to this. Reasons and beliefs, however illogical to us, are very valid to those who passionately hold them. That does not however mean that some people's belief should limit others' rights, though this happens all over and is not limited to firearms.


Here is one I hear quite commonly.......people are scared of the noise....

Are these people just wary of guns in general, or are they against the private ownership of firearms simply because of the sound? I was thinking of an "Anti" as a Prohibitionist, or a "Gun Teetotaler " of sorts. Not that my definition is correct; I just wanting to clarify. I could hardly imagine anyone wanting to limit someone's right due to the sound, but I guess anything's possible.

harrygunner
May 17, 2011, 04:37 PM
I suspect their thoughts are captured in the Beatles song 'Imagine': "Imagine all the people Living life in peace...".

Whenever a human does something abhorrent, they are called animals or inhuman, not a part of the imaginary world they believe in.

They use what they imagine to set policy for the world we actually live in. Self defense in unnecessary in this Beatles world, as are any tools for such.

Cosmoline
May 17, 2011, 05:22 PM
That was actually a John Lennon song post-breakup. But there is something to that. It also explains why young people are more likely to be anti-gun. Once you learn more about the world you tend to change your views.

RonC
May 17, 2011, 05:36 PM
My wife carries an irrational fear of guns. There were none in her household when she was growing up. All she ever heard was that guns were "bad," as if an inanimate object could act in an objectionable fashion on its own.

She tolerates my interest in firearms. She even can now accept some of my pro-gun views as reasonable. Still, she is afraid of guns. She says that "she just doesn't like them."

I made a big mistake when she willingly went shooting with me. We went to an indoor range on a Saturday that was very busy. We used a Ruger 22/45 22 cal. One lane down was a man firing a 44 mag. All conspired to frighten her away. You could see her tense up with each WHUMP of the 44 mag. Ultimately, she ran out of the range and waited in the car for me.

If I had to do it again, I would take her to an outdoor range on a day that wasn't busy. She remains terribly frightened by guns, but does no longer debate gun issues because she recognizes that her arguments and statements are fear, not logic based. I accept that, and she accepts my concealed carry and enjoyment of shooting sports.

Ron

CFletch08
May 17, 2011, 05:48 PM
I have some hard-core liberals in my family (mother's side), and they seem to think that guns are useless for law-abiding subjects... I mean... citizens. This is especially unbeleivable to me since my father is a deputy (originally lasd) and his side of the family is as gun-loving as it gets. The liberals seem to be willfully ignorant of the realities of life IMHO, at least the ones in my family.

CarolinaJack88
May 17, 2011, 05:48 PM
Personally I think a lot of antis probably don't really think guns are cool (like a lot of us do) and see them as tools for 1) defense 2) murder and crime. These people would like to live in a world without those two things (so would I). I would like to not feel like I need/should have a gun. I would love for the world to not need them.

My wife doesn't think guns are cool and doesn't really care about them. She doesn't mind my guns but doesn't want me to go crazy (I'll slowly build up so she doesn't notice).

SleazyRider
May 17, 2011, 06:06 PM
I have discovered that, in many cases, those opposed to gun ownership really haven't given the matter extensive thought; but instead, subscribe to the agenda of certain parties or schools of thought. For example, I believe you will find a commonality with school teachers, Democrats, and those whose level of education exceeds their capacity for understanding. Remember, "educated"---in the formal sense of the word---is no guarantee of intelligence or common sense, it simply means they have taken a prescribed curricula of courses and passed, perhaps marginally. I am not an educated man, but from what I have observed, colleges and universities are not exactly the bastions of free thought they should be, in fact, their approach to thinking is somewhat dogmatic.

Most of my colleagues and neighbors are "anti-gun." They are also somewhat isolated from "real world" experience, having not served in the military, lived or even visited high-crime areas, or worked in anything other than an academic or professional environment. Few hunt or fish, fewer still have even seen a firearm in person. They are repulsed at the thought of my killing a deer, let alone field dressing it.

Yet we live and work together in harmony, respectful and mindful of each other's beliefs and principles. They are not ignorant people by any means, but from what I can gather, their opinions about gun ownership are formed by CNN, The New York Times, and the silver screen---not a very balanced diet of information. But for gun owners to label them as "stupid" individuals is wrong and unproductive.

TexasBill
May 17, 2011, 07:18 PM
From an early age, kids these day are taught to run away from guns. Schools and parents reinforce this. It's well-meaning and intended to keep children from accidental shootings but it's not a balanced approach but it's easy and requires little creative thought. It's also easy to make schools "gun-free" zones, creating a fairy-tale sanctuary right up until the time reality pokes its nose in.

Guns are a part of life, just like any number of things that can cause great harm or death if misused and people are afraid of dying and things that can cause death. With most of the other things, training in their proper use is the normal course of events. Cars, knives and such are things that must be used to function in daily life. People can cut themselves or be injured in traffic accidents and still go back to cutting their food and driving because it's important. Guns, on the other hand, don't have a "must have" function to most people (present company excluded, of course). Folks can live long and full lives without ever having a physical contact with a real gun.

And don't forget, most people never hear of good news about guns and their usage. Guns are used by criminals and a select few - the police - who are highly trained in their use and are the guardians of public safety dedicated to our protection (Gee, I typed all of that with a straight face. Amazing!). Therefore, those who aren't police and have guns must be criminals, or thinking about being criminals, or intent on something contrary to the public good, even if it's only upsetting the citizens by exposing them to a gun outside of the accepted police officer context.

People like fairy tales, especially ones that tell them if they avoid guns, they will be safe from guns. People don't like reality, like understanding that the police can almost never be there in time to save your bacon. Look at the security system ads on TV: they might as well begin "once upon a time...." Like the one where the woman's ex is smashing through the back door and the monitoring company calls her - and she answers! It's almost painful to watch.

So, consider these to be some of the root causes of anti-gun feelings among those who don't have a rational reason for their distaste. And their reason for evangelizing? People don't like stones thrown at their glass houses so they want everyone to have the same glass house.

yhtomit
May 17, 2011, 07:25 PM
Here's one reason: irresponsible gun owners can turn others against guns.

I have a relative who I like very much -- she's smart, vicacious, generally adventurous -- who is not a fan of guns. She does martial arts, is under no illusion that people are generally nice. However, as I understand it (she's a relative by marriage rather than blood) she grew up in a house where her dad kept loaded guns dangerously around, rather than just "around." She has young kids, and doesn't like the idea of guns being around on the coffee table, etc.

Every time a gun owner sweeps someone at the range (especially a new shooter, or the girlfriend who came along relunctantly), or shoots a few rounds in the air at New Year's, there's some reason for people to be anti-gun.

You can't police every other person's stupid behavior, though -- I think the best you can do is be a good advocate by demonstrating good practices, being friendly and polite, inviting people to shoot .22s with a good expectation-setting session first, etc.

timothy

AZ
May 17, 2011, 07:39 PM
Some say it's irrational and others intellectually justified, but I feel it's a combination of the two. Case and point, when I decided to buy my first rifle I told my mother out of respect as I was living with her at the time. She acted in an immediate manner that would suggest absolute fear, as if I told I was going to commit murder. Now as I tried to dig deeper into what caused that immediate reaction she became frantic and started questioning my intentions. Why do you NEED a gun?! I told her my reasoning and my desire and she seemed to transition from that initial knee-jerk reaction of fear to a defensive state in which she began clearly expressing the dangers associated with firearms and how they bring danger into households, crime into neighborhoods and tragedy into families. I retorted each remark in a grounded and reasonable way. Finally she completed the transition by trying to "back up her claims" with statistics, studies and stories from the newspapers and friends. I had heard them all before and explained why they are either irrelevant or flat out wrong.

Many of the anti-gun or hoplophobic individuals I meet seem to have a deeply rooted and irrational fear of guns that they then try to justify with "facts" they heard on the 6 o'clock news. It is a phobia justified by its prevalence and political support. We can all agree a fear of bees is irrational, but if the majority of society was afraid of bees, there were statistics showing how bee hives increase poverty and street violence and there was a political party with an interest in eradicating bees, you might very well see an organized anti-bee movement. But as it is people associate guns with violence and therefore feel they do have a justification to fear guns AND gun owners. It is the irrational supported by the irrelevant and the fearful egged on by the fearful.

BTW, my mother is now an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment because I actually introduced her to what the gun community is really like instead of how it's portrayed in main stream America.

Patriotme
May 17, 2011, 07:40 PM
I believe that most anti gunners are simply ignorant of firearms and misled by the media, Lefty politicians, anti gun groups and the media (they deserve to be mentioned at least twice).
Every handgun is a cannon that can blow someone across the room and every "Assault Weapon" is obviously fully automatic and can cut someone in half. BTW, did you know that you can carry Glocks through metal detectors?
Most anti gunners just recite what they are told on the news and what they see in movies. They are ignorant but can be reasoned with if you can get them to debate you one on one. If they're in a crowd then they'll go off topic and you'll never get to clear up all of the nonsense as they shout you down.
Then there's the politicaly active anti gunner. They generally know a bit more about guns but have no problem lying, twisting the truth or making up "Facts" to support their opinion. We see this in many of the anti gun groups. These are the dangerous ones because they are willing to set aside common sense in order to promote their political agenda.

AlexanderA
May 17, 2011, 07:42 PM
Some anti-gunners are that way for obvious reasons:

The Washington Post has been on an anti-gun crusade ever since its publisher, Philip Graham (husband of Katherine Graham), killed himself with a shotgun in 1948.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has been on an anti-gun crusade ever since her husband was killed in the Long Island Railroad shooting.

And we all know about Sarah Brady.

But, I think that a lot, if not most, of the anti-gun feeling is the result of political "tribalism." That is, if you live in the Northeast, or in California, and most of your friends are "liberals," you'll go along unthinkingly with their prevailing ideology, which includes being against guns. (The converse is also true -- being pro-gun has become part of the so-called "conservative" ideology.)

My hat's off to the brave souls who buck this blind polarization. There are some of us who are pro-gun "liberals."

Monkeyleg
May 17, 2011, 07:42 PM
There's almost as many reasons for being anti as there are anti's.

At the "average person" level, there's irrational fear, ignorance about guns, bad experiences with guns or people with guns, brainwashing from friends, relatives or media, or just going along to get along (as in college).

My brother is anti-handgun. He hunted all of his life with guns and bows, and I consider him to be a model sportsman. However, handguns scare him. He has no experience with them, and sees their purpose as being only for shooting people.

Move up to the anit-gun organizer, and the reasons become more interesting. There's all the reasons above, but there's one that I find the most disgusting: money. There's very good money to be made being involved in anti-gun groups, and the work isn't very hard.

It's very possible to make $60K with every conceivable benefit (car allowance, pension, health insurance, etc) and work part time.

The Lone Haranguer
May 17, 2011, 10:51 PM
Several prominent and outspoken "antis" suffered a personal loss or trauma. It doesn't make their feelings and views right, but it does make them understandable.

Heretic
May 17, 2011, 11:16 PM
If you go to Dave Champion's websight (Davechampion.com) you'll find an excellent article written by a shrink about why people are anti's. The article also has really good advice on how to talk to an anti, and maybe get them to think.

Nushif
May 17, 2011, 11:49 PM
The article also has really good advice on how to talk to an anti, and maybe get them to think.

That's the slope I was talking about. We went from someone who had views other than us to using a "shrink" and "getting people to think."

"Antis" are people too. People who don't like what we think. But there's no point to assume simply because someone who doesn't agree with our point of view when it comes to personal defense "doesn't think."

This whole "facts" and "start to think" rhetoric is just as misguided as "assault weapons."

"How to talk to an anti" ... it's not like they're a foreign species. They're people too. And you talk to them with respect and so they maintain their dignity.

Gordon_Freeman
May 18, 2011, 12:53 AM
I got shot in the hip with .22 birdshot from close range by a kid when I was 13. It seems like I should really fear guns because of that experience. I have always enjoyed shooting and I like guns more than ever now.

duns
May 18, 2011, 01:04 AM
It's mainly about culture -- if you are brought up in an anti-gun environment you will most likely be anti-gun. That doesn't mean you haven't thought about it deeply but you will be predisposed to accept the prevailing opinion of your country or of your neighbors in the place where you live. It may still translate into a deep conviction that guns (and self defense) are wrong. There is a parallel with religion - people tend to believe in the religion they were brought up in. It is misguided to ridicule people who have different views; that will do more harm than good. The only option is to discuss with them while accepting their views though the chance of making converts is slim.

Sediment
May 18, 2011, 05:26 AM
From my experience I haven't been able to "convert" any anti-gunners, but if you can have a level-headed conversation with them, you can at least help them understand where you are coming from. Making yourself understood in a civilized way without sounding like "some racist-redneck-conservative-militia-member-whackjob" then you give yourself a leg to stand on. Rambling on about anti-gun politicians and their ilk only serves to fuel the fire against pro-2A people. Abortion, Gay marriage, Religion, Global Warming and 9/11 Conspiracy theories are hot button topics right up there with guns, gun rights, and gun owners. It must be approached in a way as to not attack someones beliefs or calling them stupid. Helping them understand the reality that guns are not evil and do not turn gun owners into murderers is a step in the right direction. You may never convert someone but you can help them get the "other sides" story and go from there.

Stay calm, listen and try to understand the person you are talking to. In the same light they should have enough respect to listen and understand you and why you feel the way you do. If you cannot even have a simple discussion with another human being that disagrees with you, then you should probably save your breath for another day.

Shadow 7D
May 18, 2011, 06:26 AM
Um, they don't think about it, no really ask them
the have their opinion, alot of reinforcement that it's the right one, and they are happy with it.

Every now and then, one of them runs up against the cold hard world, and they usually just take it as proof that they were right, not that they were wrong, and could have done some thing to help themselves out.

bbuddtec
May 18, 2011, 06:49 AM
Harry, and Cosmoline are on it in my opinion, key word being "school" and the music fuels the teacher fantasy world, then throw in the "a" factor, as yhtomit said, and you have division. Like the guys that get off scaring people with their gun(s), they are working against us.

Being responsible and an ambassador for gun ownership could be a part of the solution, I'd offer that NRA/ILA membership would help in this cause, and I'm in. New York needs help and no I can't just up and move, most unfortunately.

M-Cameron
May 18, 2011, 07:53 AM
I got shot in the hip with .22 birdshot from close range by a kid when I was 13. It seems like I should really fear guns because of that experience. I have always enjoyed shooting and I like guns more than ever now.

no....not at all.......

there are plenty of people who get into car accidents and continue to drive, plenty of chefs who cut themselves and continue to cook, and plenty of pilots who had an emergency landing and continue to fly...........

.........HOWEVER.... there are also people who get into a car accident and never drive a car for the rest of their lives.....

Psychology is a semi-science........human brains are similar......but they are never exactly the same, even in identical twins raised the same way, they are different.......

.....so it makes no sense to assume that what happens to one person will have the same effect on someone else.

Pete D.
May 18, 2011, 07:57 AM
Do you find most people who are anti-gun to just be unknowledgeable about the topic?
Well....I haven't met most people who are anti gun but, regarding the ones that I have met,....the answer is yes.
Pete

Lord Teapot
May 18, 2011, 07:59 AM
most of the anti's i've spoken with seem to think guns are in themselves evil. no particular reasoning behind it, most of them can be brought to the light by producing statistics showing higher crime in lower gun ownership areas.

Paladin7
May 18, 2011, 08:10 AM
Personally, I believe liberalism is a mental disorder. Anti-gun folks are nearly always political liberals.

All the liberals I know, and there are a lot of them where I live, are irrationally afraid of their own shadows, envious/jealous of others and harbor deep seated prejudice. Hmmm, come to think of it, that sounds exactly like the picture they try to paint of God fearing southern conservatives.... Anyway, they cling to Utopian ideals as a means of controlling others to make up for their own neurosis and short comings in life.

Do I sound bitter? Well I guess that's what living in a blue state will do to you... And why are these states blue? Shouldn't they be RED?

stevelyn
May 18, 2011, 08:51 AM
I find most antis have some sort of mental or emotional issues and have difficulty functioning normally in life. Look closely and you'll find other areas of their life screwed up.

Mt Shooter
May 18, 2011, 08:54 AM
I think its beacuse most Anti's have a D under there poltical preferances.

M-Cameron
May 18, 2011, 08:55 AM
I find most antis have some sort of mental or emotional issues and have difficulty functioning normally in life. Look closely and you'll other areas of their life screwed up.

ehh......

if you look at anyone closely enough......youll find most peoples lives are a little screwwy.....

you can find signs of mental issues in just about everyone.........and just about every family has some history of mental illness somewhere along the lines......

D94R
May 18, 2011, 09:10 AM
I suspect their thoughts are captured in the Beatles song 'Imagine': "Imagine all the people Living life in peace...".

Yet, "Happiness, is a warm gun, baby" ;)




Anyhow, I know of two (yes only two) people personally that I consider to be hardcore anti-gun. One is a co-worker's wife. She's the typical person who has done everything there is to do in life. "I've shot machine guns, drove tanks, met Elvis, yadda yadda yadda." She is also a product of Chicago. I'd recon her stance on these type of hot-topics is more for attention as that is what her world is based upon.



The other person is a co-worker. A product of Seattle. He recently made the comment that he thinks "they" should ban all full auto and semi auto guns and we'd all be safer. He qualified this statement by reminding us he just got back from 6 months in Singapore and he "never felt safer". When I cornered him about how many times he can recall a full-auto weapon being used in a crime he couldn't think of any (admittantly I can only think of the LA Bank robbery). I also pointed out that full auto's are pretty much out of touch for the majority, and are very limited in number as it were to the public. He still had nothing to say. He also was left without words when I asked what the people of Singapore were to do if their government were to turn on them, and if he understood we have the Right to bare arms for that reason. Again, he couldn't comment. Now, this guy used to work as a garbage man, and killed a homeless guy who was sleeping in a dumpster, when he emptied it into the truck and crushed the garbage and the man. I like to always kill his tirade of comments stating he's killed more people with his dump truck than I have with my guns, so we should therefore ban garbage trucks. Unfortunately, logic will never win this guy over. He is a product of letting everyone do the thinking for him.

Nushif
May 18, 2011, 12:58 PM
This is why people don't like gun owners:

Personally, I believe liberalism is a mental disorder. Anti-gun folks are nearly always political liberals.

I think its beacuse most Anti's have a D under there poltical preferances.

I find most antis have some sort of mental or emotional issues and have difficulty functioning normally in life.

[...] they cling to Utopian ideals as a means of controlling others to make up for their own neurosis and short comings in life.

All the liberals I know [...] are irrationally afraid of their own shadows, envious/jealous of others and harbor deep seated prejudice.

This ... is what we should do to sway popular opinion.

Being responsible and an ambassador for gun ownership could be a part of the solution [...]

[...] but if you can have a level-headed conversation with them, you can at least help them understand where you are coming from. Making yourself understood in a civilized way [...]

Keep going, guys! I'm sure we can alienate a couple more folks to what we love in life! With comments like the topmost ones, who needs the Brady Campaign? Because ...

If you cannot even have a simple discussion with another human being that disagrees with you, then you should probably save your breath for another day.

ErikO
May 18, 2011, 01:55 PM
I grew up in a house where my older brother had guns and reloaded ammo in the basement while my mom told me time and time again that guns were dangerous. She grew up in occupied Norway where having a gun had other liabilities...

The earliest memory I have about firearms was when my brother let em hold his Remington .30-06 (bolt removed) when I was 7 or 8. Damned thing was heavy, smelled of cordite and gun oil and I was in *love*. Unfortunately, living in Illinois made it hard for me to justify owning guns, a situation I am working to fix now that we're settled in Missouri. ;)

My wife grew up in Canada. She has not had 'any use for guns' until after we got broken in to back in December. We're going to a First Shots in June. :D

The point is, it seems that it takes many factors to make someone either pro or anti gun ownership. Not being a jerk is a good way to get your point across to someone and taht is the tactic I try to employ.

Paladin7
May 18, 2011, 02:03 PM
Nushif, yes we are being a bit harsh... but I just don't think that you can reason with someone who is unreasonable.

Someone on the fence, or who isn't really paying attention and has some Liberal beliefs for whatever reason, but is otherwise reasonable and willing to think is another story.

I guess I should have made a distinction between the two.

Nushif
May 18, 2011, 02:10 PM
I don't know what kind of "mellowing" you can do to a line like liberalism being called a mental disorder.
It shows the depth of your argument in this case quite nicely.

Paladin7
May 18, 2011, 02:39 PM
I'll stand by my statement that Liberalism is a mental disorder. I'm not sure how else to describe an irrational belief in a utopian ideal, the end of which recorded history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, is human misery, death and genocide.

Cryogaijin
May 18, 2011, 06:32 PM
I'll stand by my statement that Liberalism is a mental disorder. I'm not sure how else to describe an irrational belief in a utopian ideal, the end of which recorded history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, is human misery, death and genocide. Look up the definition of Liberal some time. You're using it wrong. Let me help you.

: 5. broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms or
relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom This last one describes the majority of people on this forum, I believe. Also the right to personal carry wouldn't exist without these modes of thinking.

In my experience there usually are reasons for people to be Anti. MANY people are anti gun largely due to having no exposure. Others are antigun due to a traumatizing experience. Others are anti-gun due to people making ignorant comments like the one above. Still more are anti-gun due to buying into the stack of lies that Hollywood portrays.

It is important to remember that every person with a firearm represents the firearms community to those people they interact with. If you're an ignorant redneck who likes giving overpowered guns to undersized women, you're part of the problem. If you're a sensible person that portrays firearms as tools for specific tasks, and nothing more, you are part of the solution.

The whole thing about the "Liberal vs conservative" debate is so upside down it isn't funny. If you look at the ACTUAL definitions, not those that people assume are the definitions, it is the people wanting more power for the federal government, more "socialist" agenda that are conservative (Remember, this country was founded on the liberal notion to get us AWAY from centralized power structures) and those of us desiring more local power, less federal, and emphasizing individual freedoms are actually the liberals. But I guess that is a mental disorder.

yhtomit
May 18, 2011, 07:15 PM
But, I think that a lot, if not most, of the anti-gun feeling is the result of political "tribalism." That is, if you live in the Northeast, or in California, and most of your friends are "liberals," you'll go along unthinkingly with their prevailing ideology, which includes being against guns. (The converse is also true -- being pro-gun has become part of the so-called "conservative" ideology.)

Hear, hear!

And Yep, the blade cuts both ways -- No, *many* ways! Much easier to be part of a larger group; when you think some other bunch agrees with you on 5 of 6 things, it's a lot of pressure on you to agree with them on the 6th.

timothy

Tommygunn
May 18, 2011, 07:27 PM
This is why people don't like gun owners:


Quote:
Personally, I believe liberalism is a mental disorder. Anti-gun folks are nearly always political liberals.

Quote:
I think its beacuse most Anti's have a D under there poltical preferances.

Quote:
I find most antis have some sort of mental or emotional issues and have difficulty functioning normally in life.

Quote:
[...] they cling to Utopian ideals as a means of controlling others to make up for their own neurosis and short comings in life.

Quote:
All the liberals I know [...] are irrationally afraid of their own shadows, envious/jealous of others and harbor deep seated prejudice.

This ... is what we should do to sway popular opinion.


Quote:
Being responsible and an ambassador for gun ownership could be a part of the solution [...]

Quote:
[...] but if you can have a level-headed conversation with them, you can at least help them understand where you are coming from. Making yourself understood in a civilized way [...]

Keep going, guys! I'm sure we can alienate a couple more folks to what we love in life! With comments like the topmost ones, who needs the Brady Campaign? Because ...


Quote:
If you cannot even have a simple discussion with another human being that disagrees with you, then you should probably save your breath for another day.

__________________
Democrats are not socialists. We have never had a stable socialist government in modern history. All were or are communist and authoritarian. Communism is not socialism. Ironically American conservatism is authoritarian, too.

While some pro gun people refer to antigunners in less than stellar terms, the converse is also true: many liberal, antigunners are equally disdainful in how they treat progunners.
I wouldn't start trying to convince an antigunner by claiming they have a "psychosis" (or whatever) but if they persisted in being unable to atleast get their heads around an opposing argument, I'd probably walk away thinking they might actually have a mental hang up.
Communism is not "socialism," but it is an "iteration" of socialism. The Soviet Union was communistic, but the name "USSR" meant "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." The USSR was not really a republic -- atleast not as our founders would define one. Democracy, socialism, they were steps a country took on the way toward true communist states.
Democrats (some) may not be true socialists in the pure sense of the word but they are what could be called "socialistic." That is "after the manner of socialists."
We get closer to totalitarinism everyday. Really closer to Fascism in a way though.
But .... that's another rant ... ... ... ...

exavid
May 18, 2011, 08:03 PM
Urbanization seems to be the main cause of anti-firearm feelings in people. Most likely because most people in urban settings never have cause to handle or use a firearm. Their only contact with firearms are the evening news on TV or their newspapers all describing crimes done with firearms. Highly urbanized people don't do much for them selves, they have never hunted or fished for food. They hire most of their plumbing, electrical, carpentry, painting, etc. work to be done for them. These are very insulated people who rely on others for all their needs and safety. They rely on 'professionals' for these services. The same goes for their personal safety. They don't own much in the way of hand or power tools because that kind of work is done for them. The same goes for guns. They have the police, professionals, for that kind of thing. They don't need guns or an electric drill and they don't know how to deal with either.
Urbanization also seems to foster what we refer to as 'liberalism' although that is a badly applied name because modern liberals are anything but. Liberals are the first to call for a ban on anything they don't like. They are highly authoritarian, look at our schools with their insane 'zero tolerance' rules. Designed to be followed unthinkingly by rote which reduces any need for common sense and thought. Look at universities that love 'diversity' but not diversity in thought. Students are expected to parrot back what their teachers and professors believe or are penalized for having the temerity of thinking critically. Look at global warming, skeptics were compared to holocaust deniers. If you didn't follow the received opinions on the subject you were a pariah.
I don't believe that liberalism is a mental disease but I believe that what passes for liberalism nowadays certainly is.

Nushif
May 18, 2011, 08:04 PM
Urbanization seems to be the main cause of anti-firearm feelings in people.

Now that is pretty darned plausible. Exposure to well ... anything has a lot to do with comfort level.

crathbone78
May 18, 2011, 08:18 PM
My wife didn't like guns before we got married and at the time I was kind of in between guns (I had sold them all needing money a couple years before I met her). I think she gets it from her mom. Her dad was in the Navy and her mom wouldnt even let him bring the fake parade rifles in the house. She was sure that one of the kids would get shot if there was a gun in the house. I have started rebuilding my collection, taking her to the range, and bought her a .22lr to try out. Now she loves going to the range.

I recently told my mom and sister about getting my CCW. They both gasped and asked why I would need to carry a gun around with me, like I was trying to be John Wayne or something. After having a logical conversation with them they seemed to understand, and even appreciate the fact that while I am around them, they have some protection from the BG's.

Some people though, you cannot have a logical conversation with and I try not to waste my time on.

happygeek
May 18, 2011, 09:21 PM
I'm surprised no one has thrown out a theory on the different types of anti-gun people yet. For example Josh Sugermann is most definitely not anti-gun for the same reason than your typical next door neighbor or co-worker might be. I've read enough of Sugermann's writings between vpc.org and his books to realize that he's not stupid or ignorant in the least. He is well aware of what the current firearms laws are, he's well aware of the utter failure of every gun control scheme that's been tried (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm), he's well aware of how firearms work on a technical level, heck he probably owns a registered auto and/or other NFA items. He does have a FFL in D.C., which couldn't have been easy to get:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x297/fdhs_runner/JoshSugermannFFL.jpg

I'm not sure if Sugermann has a hidden motive or if he's just doing it for that nice paycheck from the Joyce Foundation, but he's not ignorant about or scared of guns.

My own theory on some of the different types of gun control people is
1) the elitists: those who think only they should be allowed to own and carry guns
2) the statists: only the government should own and carry guns
3) the nanny staters: only the government should own and carry guns because they're the adults and the "citizens" are children who can't be trusted
4) those who are scared of guns to the point that they think no one should own and carry guns

I've had the displeasure of talking to a couple of #1s and way back in the day I used to be a #4, except that I wasn't in favor of depriving others of their choice to own guns. It took about a year of exposure to get me over a fear of guns and another 4 years or so to get to a point where I liked them and wanted one.

hso
May 18, 2011, 09:26 PM
One classic example not mentioned is the individual who wouldn't trust themselves with a gun so they do not trust anyone else to have them. Externalization.

The elitest is the individual who doesn't trust anyone else with a gun because they consider others to be inferior and not to be trusted.

Ignition Override
May 18, 2011, 09:53 PM
How often is a law-abiding private citizen with a gun depicted on tv shows and in movies?

I can't really remember more than a few, other than Croc. Dundee and the movies where Julia Roberts and other females escape or are cornered by tyrannical husbands, stalkers (Morgan Fairchild) etc.

In contrast, there must be vast multitudes of gun violence plots, which seem to only revolve around soldiers and police, otherwise they involve criminals and terrorists with handguns, AKs and HKs or even Mini 14s: George Clooney, the hit man in Sweden, Italy, and Jean Reno protecting young Natalie Portman.

hso:
Does Senator Dianne Feinstein actually have a carry permit, or just bodyguards?

Monkeyleg
May 18, 2011, 11:34 PM
Lots of valid opinions here, but none can explain this fruitcake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TOmYwnfXKU&feature=share

Neverwinter
May 18, 2011, 11:43 PM
One classic example not mentioned is the individual who wouldn't trust themselves with a gun so they do not trust anyone else to have them. Externalization.

The elitest is the individual who doesn't trust anyone else with a gun because they consider others to be inferior and not to be trusted.
Both of those examples are likely instances of the psychological phenomenon termed projection.

Pigoutultra
May 18, 2011, 11:49 PM
Is it just me or is that guy a racist, psychotic, hate-mongering sociopath, who projects his own psychological faults on everyone else. He says that he wanted to hunt down and kill the man who robbed him, so he automatically assumes everyone would do the same.

Edit: As I watched more of the video, he even said that all gun owners intend to be murders. After that he talked about how criminals steal their guns from legal law-abiding gun owners. How can they be law-abiding yet also be murders?

Justin
May 19, 2011, 12:12 PM
Given that one of his other YouTube accounts links to a website hawking his book where he claims to have seen God in a motel in Torrance, California, I'd say it's pretty clear he's in need of a mental health care provider.

Nushif
May 19, 2011, 12:21 PM
Now, this would be an interesting question:

How do people like this attract followers? You know? The stark raving lunatics with no capacity for rational discourse?

And I don't mean only one side, but I'm talking the Beck type personality, the Brady types ... you name it?

I mean, who thinks that these kinds of people *should* be our spokes people? Why do the "antis" pick something like the Brady variety? Why do these large movements love their lunatics?

Should be the topic of another thread ... pretty sure it's not about firearms, really, either.

HGUNHNTR
May 19, 2011, 12:29 PM
Quote:
I'll stand by my statement that Liberalism is a mental disorder. I'm not sure how else to describe an irrational belief in a utopian ideal, the end of which recorded history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, is human misery, death and genocide.

Look up the definition of Liberal some time. You're using it wrong. Let me help you.


Quote:
: 5. broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

or

Quote:
relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform

Quote:
relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom

This last one describes the majority of people on this forum, I believe. Also the right to personal carry wouldn't exist without these modes of thinking.

In my experience there usually are reasons for people to be Anti. MANY people are anti gun largely due to having no exposure. Others are antigun due to a traumatizing experience. Others are anti-gun due to people making ignorant comments like the one above. Still more are anti-gun due to buying into the stack of lies that Hollywood portrays.

It is important to remember that every person with a firearm represents the firearms community to those people they interact with. If you're an ignorant redneck who likes giving overpowered guns to undersized women, you're part of the problem. If you're a sensible person that portrays firearms as tools for specific tasks, and nothing more, you are part of the solution.

The whole thing about the "Liberal vs conservative" debate is so upside down it isn't funny. If you look at the ACTUAL definitions, not those that people assume are the definitions, it is the people wanting more power for the federal government, more "socialist" agenda that are conservative (Remember, this country was founded on the liberal notion to get us AWAY from centralized power structures) and those of us desiring more local power, less federal, and emphasizing individual freedoms are actually the liberals. But I guess that is a mental disorder.





Amen sir!

Paladin7
May 19, 2011, 12:39 PM
Cryogaigin, please... What you are describing is a "Classical Liberal," which is what most of us on this forum are, as were folks like our Founding Fathers, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Montesquieu, etc. I am using the term "Liberal" in its current context, which means "Statist," like the Materialist Philosophers and the people they gave rise to like Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, etc...

Guys, there is a history of political and economic thought here that goes back generations that you will not find by trolling a dictionary for terms.

goon
May 19, 2011, 04:11 PM
+2
Lately I've become more and more liberal. I pretty much feel people should be left to live in peace and do just about whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. I really could not care less what you do with your life... as long as you're no harming me or anyone else. I'd call that very liberal. It's also one reason why I'm such a strong supporter of gun ownership - because as long as you're not harming me, why should I or anyone else have the right to prevent you from doing anything (including owning a gun)?

And when we talk of fear as a motivation, I think it's important to note that at least some of us actually own weapons out of fear.
I know that there are men who are much bigger and stronger than me. This is a fact of nature. Those people could harm me and mine if they were so inclined, especially if I were outnumbered. The thought of being helpless as my loved ones are being harmed scares the hell out of me. Hence, I own an equalizer.

Justin
May 19, 2011, 05:02 PM
Most people who lean anti are generally just ignorant. Your average person who doesn't own guns or hasn't been to a range has had their entire view on the subject informed from media sources that are less than realistic or truthful, including movies, video games, and the various news media outlets.

The average person simply lacks experience, and therefore just defaults to what they're told. They're not anti so much as simply misinformed.

I think many of the higher-ups in the various gun control groups are mostly just in it for the paycheck and perks, e.g. Paul Helmke, who most likely jumped over to the Brady Campaign as a way to earn a living and further his political career, or Josh Horwitz, who makes money in part by litigating against gun companies.

Some anti-gun advocates probably aren't in it just for the money. I would suspect that Colin Goddard is probably well-meaning, but has come to his anti-gun mindset as a result of his being one of the victims at Virginia Tech.

The only gun control activist I know of who seems to take the whole utopian ideal completely seriously is Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He claims to be a committed "peace activist" and sees gun control as a way to implement an ideal society.

As for Joan Peterson, who is a board member of the Brady Campaign, she's basically a walking, talking stereotype of a frothing anti-gun activist. Given some of the things she says, I almost want to believe she's an NRA plant designed to discredit the anti-gun movement.

Ignition Override
May 19, 2011, 05:14 PM
Monkeyleg:
I only watched about three minutes of that video, but he sounds exactly like many of the people in downtown Madison WI: 400 square miles Surrounded by reality. I've been there several times, and twice to Berkeley CA.
They tend to live in a dream world of social, economic and political theory, which is because many of them have become teachers, professors or "professional students", or work in small insulated businesses (coffee, quiche, pizza, deli, books) and mostly associate with those people.

azmjs
May 19, 2011, 06:28 PM
Some people fear guns, some people fear criminals, some people fear authority.

Guns are weapons, and weapons are powerful objects, and therefore play on different people's fears.

ExTank
May 19, 2011, 06:55 PM
Out of all the Antis I've debated with/argued with/been involved in screaming (internet) matches with, I have yet to hear one offer up a "personal" reason of any kind.

In my experience, which I fully and freely admit is not all-inclusionary of everything, the Antis fall into a few broad categories, some of which overlap/dovetail with one another to some degree or another:

1. Statists. "Call the cops if someone is threatening you." Big Brother is your friend, and will protect you.

2. Necessitists. "Why do you need a gun?" They feel the need for a "right" to everything from free speech to abortion, and free, state-paid gender-bending medical treatments for the asking for anyone and everyone, but not your right to keep and bear, because guns serve no useful purpose in a civilised society.

3. Rightists. "There is no right to keep and bear arms. It's all a fiction of the pro-gun lobby." These people will often scream "stare decisis!" on any Constitutional Law/legal matter that supports their pet view of Rights, but never, ever, acknowledge a single point of contradictory data that tells them their world-view is factually incorrect on any level. Extremely bitter of both the Heller and MacDonald decisions, since in their worldview, the last word on guns came down in 1939 in U.S. v Miller.

4. Pragmatists. "The right to keep and bear in irrelevant; guns cause to much harm to society." While well-intentioned, these folks can trot out all kinds of cherry-picked statistics showing all the harm guns do, and yet often overlook mountains of data showing that swimming pools, household cleaners, cigarette lighters, ladders, cars, tobacco, and fatty foods kill more people each than guns do.

Pragmatists often overlap with Necessitists in that they acknowledge a useful purpose for things like swimming pools, cars, and ladders, but not guns.

Pragmatists are also good for trying to guilt-trip gun owners for selfishly hanging onto our "right" in the face of the "overwhelming mayhem" guns cause.

5. Realists. "Yes, you have a right to keep and bear, but the reason behind it is outdated and the Constitution needs to be amended." Often, these types may be also some hybrid of Statists/Necessitists/Pragmatists, but may also stand apart from them. Often intelligent, articulate, and reasonable, but just from a different worldview. Very rare, too.

6. Hoplophobes (courtesy of Col. Jeff Cooper). "Guns are evil! And scary! No one should have one!" You might think that most of these are people who have had a bad experience with guns, and thus a very real reason to be afraid of them, but I've yet to run across them. There's no reasoning with an irrational fear.

I've actually had meaningfull, intelligent debates with some Pragmatists and Realists, and to a lesser degree, some Rightists. There is very, very seldom any middle ground/compromise to be had with Statists, Necessitists, or Hoplophobes; they are also quite often pig-ignorant about firearms, their knowledge of gun's capabilities often taken from Hollywierd, biased "journalism," and anti-gun talking points.

In their worldview, all us eeeeeevil gun owners are wrong, they are right! (:cuss:) and you are just stoopid for not agreeing with them. :cuss:

:banghead:

One common thread that runs through quite a few of the above categories is the Internationalist. :scrutiny: This person thinks the U.S.A. should be more like some other foreign country (Canada and England are typical examples) and severely curtail gun ownership so that our gun crime stats are more like these other countries.

They often deliberately overlook, or merely handwave away, examples of other countries like Mexico, South Africa, or Brazil, which have draconian gun control laws, yet still have crime rates that make the worst U.S. Inner City Gangbanger War Zone look like little kids having a super-soaker war on a sunny, summer day.

JMSUN
May 19, 2011, 07:06 PM
Reason? possibly. Good reason? No; unless it is because of some Jackass gunowner. Most of them are ignorant and/or brainwashed, or have an ulterior motive. The ones that are innocently ignorant can be taught otherwise.
Just my 2 cents.

ThePunisher'sArmory
May 19, 2011, 07:07 PM
FEAR

Monkeyleg
May 19, 2011, 07:19 PM
Ignition Override, I lived in Wisconsin from 1958 until last year, and headed the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Movement for six of those years, so I know Madison and the lunatics there very well. Some of them get really violent when arguing about guns, which is all the more reason for me to carry a gun.

I think many of the higher-ups in the various gun control groups are mostly just in it for the paycheck and perks...

This is what I was talking about before. And here's an illustration of just how profitable being an anti-gun activist can be.

There's an anti-gun group in Wisconsin that's headed up by a woman. The group has a 501(c)3 non-profit wing, so the tax returns are public.

In 2001, the woman was paid $53,000, plus health insurance, car allowance, hotel, meals, pension, and everything else you can imagine. At that time the group had $500,000 in the bank.

In 2007 the group received a $650,000 grant from the Joyce Foundation, so everybody's fatter now. Two years ago they got another $300K or so.

She doesn't work very hard at this, from what I was able to tell. When I was at the capitol for the CCW bills, she didn't know where any of the legislator's offices were, or even know their staffs. (You need to know these people).

She once admitted to me that she didn't think there would be any change at all if Wisconsin got shall-issue concealed carry. She also said she had nothing against guns, and had grown up with them in her home.

When we had a senate committee hearing in the northern part of the state, we had to drive through a really bad blizzard. She had gotten an expensive hotel room the night before, and wasn't leaving until the next day when the roads were clear. Those of us from the pro-gun groups couldn't afford motels, much less ones with spas and workout rooms. We drove back home through the storm.

RichBMW
May 20, 2011, 03:57 AM
I think many of the higher-ups in the various gun control groups are mostly just in it for the paycheck and perks...

That would be a difficult argument to defend. I would guess that the paychecks of the top 10 NRA executives would blow away the paychecks of the top 10 gun control professionals.
We shouldn't doubt the sincerity of those who hold different opinions about gun control. And bashing them as greedy or stupid isn't the way to go either. I am a mostly liberal ex-New York resident, a retired teacher (and a Democrat). Some of the remarks I've read here would paint me as the enemy. But I'm a gun owner, I have my Concealed Carry permit, and I enjoy and respect my firearms. I also respect those who present a thoughtful defense of their right to bear arms.

Cryogaijin
May 20, 2011, 04:06 AM
Cryogaigin, please... What you are describing is a "Classical Liberal," which is what most of us on this forum are, as were folks like our Founding Fathers, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Montesquieu, etc. I am using the term "Liberal" in its current context, which means "Statist," like the Materialist Philosophers and the people they gave rise to like Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, etc...

Guys, there is a history of political and economic thought here that goes back generations that you will not find by trolling a dictionary for terms.
Paladin7: I've spelled your name correctly, try to get mine right.

Just because there are a ton of people misusing a term does NOT mean it is correct to misuse the term. If you had used the term "Statist" I wouldn't have objected. The problem here is that just about everything that describes a classic liberal describes me. I'm not a democrat, I'm not a republican, I'm not a libertarian, I'm not a communist, I'm not a socialist, I'm not a totalitarian, I'm not a conservative. I'm a progressive, liberal, conservationist gun-owner.

People who slander the concept of liberalism are slandering me. You can be the nicest person in the world, but the moment you start frothing at the mouth about "liberals" you've lost me.

Deanimator
May 20, 2011, 05:55 AM
The three most common reason I see are:

Ignorance. A lot of people know NOTHING about guns beyond what they see on TV and in the movies, most of which is errant nonsense. Combine this with the outright LIES of the media and the anti-gun industry and it's a wonder more people AREN'T anti-gun.
Projection. A LOT of anti-gunners seem to be drunks and druggies with poor impulse control. They impute THEIR mental and character defects to all gun owners.
Racism, Anti-Semitism, etc. At least a plurality of the White anti-gunners I've known weren't afraid of guns. They were afraid of BLACK people (and other non-Whites) with guns. A big chunk of anti-gunners have "authorized" themselves to be clones of David Duke as long as they're talking about guns. Literally, it's like being at a Klan rally talking to some of these freaks. An elderly cleaner at a Lakewood, Ohio MacDonalds once gave me crap about my NRA ball cap, declaring that the NRA should be "banned", then when I noted that we came up 6,000,000 Jews short the last time organizations started getting banned, he opined to me that he wasn't so sure that the Holocaust was a bad thing.

Paladin7
May 20, 2011, 10:24 AM
Paladin7: I've spelled your name correctly, try to get mine right.

Just because there are a ton of people misusing a term does NOT mean it is correct to misuse the term. If you had used the term "Statist" I wouldn't have objected. The problem here is that just about everything that describes a classic liberal describes me. I'm not a democrat, I'm not a republican, I'm not a libertarian, I'm not a communist, I'm not a socialist, I'm not a totalitarian, I'm not a conservative. I'm a progressive, liberal, conservationist gun-owner.

People who slander the concept of liberalism are slandering me. You can be the nicest person in the world, but the moment you start frothing at the mouth about "liberals" you've lost me.
Cryogaigin, I don't mean to offend you in any way by my comments and if you are offended then please accept my apology.

I am using these terms, Liberal and Classical Liberal. in their correct historical context and meaning. Please do some research into this beyond the basic dictionary definitions and you will find that I am right about this.

Heretic
May 20, 2011, 10:35 AM
Hey guys, I don't think liberal is the word you're looking for. I think the word is "leftist".

rellascout
May 20, 2011, 10:55 AM
Why do those who are anti-gun need a reason to be so? The beauty of this country is that we are allowed to hold different viewpoints and beliefs than our neighbors.

It is easy to defend the rights of those you agree with but the true measure of a man or woman is are they willing to defend the rights of those who they disagree with.

I do not feel the need to justify why I have guns anymore than I would expect someone else to have to justify why they don't. Every single example given in this thread for why antis fear guns can be flipped and used to explain why we have them. :scrutiny:

Owen Sparks
May 20, 2011, 10:58 AM
Here is my take on it from a post that I made a few years back.
______________________________________________________

I read an interesting theory the other day that has real political implications. We all are aware that some people have knee jerk emotional reactions that can be used like handles to manipulate them. How many times have you heard "for the children" used by an unscrupulous politician? This reason this form of manipulation works is because it totally bypasses critical thinking and goes straight for the emotions.

How else can people be manipulated? By FEAR.
People are born with a natural fear of only two things, falling and loud noises. All else is learned behavior. If there were a sudden loud BANG behind you right now, you would jump. No matter how many years you have been shooting, if you did not know it was coming you would revert to natures reaction to loud noise with fear. In fact, as shooters we constantly have to suppress this natural urge to flinch even when we know it is going to happen. Gunfire is loud. It is scary on a subconscious level even to a seasoned shooter. How much more so is it to a person who is unfamiliar with firearms? Guns can have a very negative connotation to people who don't understand them, as they associate guns with loud frightening noises.

Interestingly enough, the type of person who is scared of guns and would not allow one in their home would probably be totally comfortable around archery equipment. Even though being run through with a broad head can be just about as deadly as being shot, it does not make that loud scary noise therefore it does not elicit that strong primordial urge to avoid it.

With the new Congress and President taking power it is critical that we, as gun owners promote shooting in a positive way as we are dealing with peoples deep seeded subconscious fears and the only way to conquer that fear is with knowledge.

Just an observation, OS

da3394
May 20, 2011, 11:08 AM
Most "Anti's" are ignorant of firearms and ignorant of firearm laws. The very few that would even discuss it with me beyond a regurgitation of well worn canned boiler plate B.S. do not have any valid reasons. They have unfounded fears, wild ideas that a firearm will go off on its own at unexpected times. There is very little, if any, thought or reason to their discussion. I am sorry for them. They are the victims of ignorance.

Charleo0192
May 20, 2011, 12:26 PM
Why do those who are anti-gun need a reason to be so? The beauty of this country is that we are allowed to hold different viewpoints and beliefs than our neighbors.

It is easy to defend the rights of those you agree with but the true measure of a man or woman is are they willing to defend the rights of those who they disagree with.

I do not feel the need to justify why I have guns anymore than I would expect someone else to have to justify why they don't. Every single example given in this thread for why antis fear guns can be flipped and used to explain why we have them. :scrutiny:


Simply put, think and believe as you will, but if said beliefs will affect me, you better damn well have some reasons.

rellascout
May 20, 2011, 12:29 PM
Simply put, think and believe as you will, but if you said beliefs will affect me, you better damn well have some reasons.

Why?

Charleo0192
May 20, 2011, 12:51 PM
Why?
Because that's not how the world works. If it didn't everyone would have their way which would be chaos. Thus you have logic and reason. I wish I didn't need a reason to be allowed to own and use a firearm. Sadly I do though.

happygeek
May 20, 2011, 02:44 PM
Anti-gunners have the right to believe whatever the heck they want to. It's when they start pushing for legislation that tramples on everyone's rights that we have a problem.

I used to be scared of guns. After exposure I got over that but was still not all that comfortable until a few more years later. It was awhile till I got to the point of actually liking guns and wanted one. However, I was never for anti-gun laws to strip everyone else of their civil rights.

If you're scared of guns or just don't like them that's fine. Parachuting isn't for everyone either, I'm still scared to death of that too even after a couple times. But to be for laws taking away everyone else's right to own guns or parachute, well, that's a problem.

Justin
May 20, 2011, 02:54 PM
Why do those who are anti-gun need a reason to be so?

From where I sit, it's important for a person to hold beliefs because there are rational and consistent philosophical underpinnings to those beliefs.

People are certainly free to believe whatever they so like, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm going to give more weight to, say, a physicists explanation of how things work than the explanation offered up by a tribal shaman or the like.

Likewise, when it can be so clearly demonstrated via facts, figures, statistics, and my own personal experience, that guns do not cause an increase in violent crime, and that I am, indeed, safer with a defensive sidearm than not, then people who are anti-liberty are on the hook for proving why their claims are right despite the fact that reality differs so demonstrably from what they claim.

This lack of respect for people who are demonstrably wrong goes doubly so if the people making the claims are duplicitous in their behavior.

Justin
May 20, 2011, 03:08 PM
Why?

Because messing with other people's lives and livelihoods on a simple whim is despicable, that's why. It is the action of the unthinking oaf or the tyrant.

rellascout
May 20, 2011, 03:13 PM
Because messing with other people's lives and livelihoods on a simple whim is despicable, that's why. It is the action of the unthinking oaf or the tyrant.


I could apply the same qualifications to religious believes yet they are used to mess with people's lives and livelihoods more often than gun rights issues.

Because that's not how the world works. If it didn't everyone would have their way which would be chaos. Thus you have logic and reason. I wish I didn't need a reason to be allowed to own and use a firearm. Sadly I do though.

Sadily this is exactly how the world works. Even if you use logic and reason 99% of people do not understand it, use it or apply it properly. Most of the time decisions are made using everything but logic.

Justin
May 20, 2011, 03:43 PM
I do apply the same qualifications to religious believes yet they are used to mess with people'e lives and livelihoods more often than gun rights issues.


I was unaware that this forum was dedicated to discussing issues pertaining to religion and faith.

rellascout
May 20, 2011, 04:17 PM
It's not Justin but that does not mean it cannot be bought up to prove a point . Why hold those who have anti gun sentiments to a higher standard than others. Everything is relative. We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours.

Justin
May 20, 2011, 05:26 PM
Why hold those who have anti gun sentiments to a higher standard than others.

I don't hold them to any standard higher than the one to which I hold myself.

Everything is relative.

Sure.

We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours.

People are entitled to believe whatever cockamamie notion pops into their head. That doesn't automatically make such a belief right, worth consideration, or equal in weight to a notion that is built on a foundation of logic and internal consistency.

Deanimator
May 20, 2011, 06:42 PM
It is easy to defend the rights of those you agree with but the true measure of a man or woman is are they willing to defend the rights of those who they disagree with.
Anyone has the right to be a moron.

And I have the right to CALL them a moron.

Shadow 7D
May 20, 2011, 06:55 PM
Ah, you are free to disagree
you are NOT free to force your opinion on me, or my way of life.

Doing that may result in my explaining to you where your freedom ends.

Art Eatman
May 20, 2011, 08:26 PM
"We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours."

The right to an opinion creates no validity for that opinion. That one has the right to hold some opinion does not at all mean that it's worth listening to. "Stupid is as stupid opines." :D

And so I'll stay in my box, thank you. :D:D:D

ArfinGreebly
May 20, 2011, 08:44 PM
We as the shooting community need to step out of the box we put overselves in and try to understand that others are entitled to their beliefs as much as we are entitled to ours.
Believe what you like. Have any opinion you like.

I have some opinions I'm pretty sure you'd think are nuts. That's fine. We won't be discussing those.

However, if I discovered one day that, because of your opinion, you were attempting to exert some kind of coercive authority over the exercise of my freedoms, I would seriously be in your face.

Having an opinion does not entitle one to enforce that point of view or its constraints on others.

You wanna hate my guns? Not much I can do about that. You are certainly entitled to any delusions, phobias, or obsessions that you feel are necessary to living your life. You are not entitled to visit them on me and my life.

A person who is rabidly irrational about weapons can have all the reasons he wants for his opinions and beliefs, but expecting me to accept or endorse or accept as valid in any degree the personal motivations that drive that irrationality is simply a non-starter.

In fact, given the prima facie irrationality of anti-gun attitudes and arguments, why on earth would I expend any effort at all attempting to understand the fundamentally flawed beliefs that drive them?

Justin
May 20, 2011, 10:53 PM
In fact, given the prima facie irrationality of anti-gun attitudes and arguments, why on earth would I expend any effort at all attempting to understand the fundamentally flawed beliefs that drive them?

Primarily as a way to counter their arguments and defuse their ability to drive public policy.

Secondarily, well, some people enjoy engaging in activities of mockery, parody and satire, though, given the antics of some of the anti-liberty advocates out there, satirizing them would prove to be quite the challenge.

mljdeckard
May 20, 2011, 10:55 PM
They have been conditioned to the idea that someone else is responsible for their safety, and there is nothing they can do to take control of it.

ArfinGreebly
May 21, 2011, 12:18 AM
In fact, given the prima facie irrationality of anti-gun attitudes and arguments, why on earth would I expend any effort at all attempting to understand the fundamentally flawed beliefs that drive them?

Primarily as a way to counter their arguments and defuse their ability to drive public policy.

Secondarily, well, some people enjoy engaging in activities of mockery, parody and satire, though, given the antics of some of the anti-liberty advocates out there, satirizing them would prove to be quite the challenge.

Well, okay, fair point.

My context was more along lines of "understanding for empathy" or perhaps "understanding for conciliation."

Understanding for better engagement? Of course, yes.

I apologize for my clumsy wording.

Cryogaijin
May 21, 2011, 04:09 AM
From a conversation at work yesterday,
I was really anti-gun until about a year after I got married (To a gentleman that works as a defense contractor.) After a year I finally gave in and went to the range, and I've been shooting ever since! That is the reason that you figure out why people are anti-gun.

1911Tuner
May 21, 2011, 08:47 AM
Okay...Here's my tuppence on the question.

I don't mind if another man doersn't care for chocolate ice cream. His choice...whatever his reasons...and not my place to question it. I'm not about to change his viewpoint by any argument...reasoned and logical or otherwise. My only chance is by taking him to shoot. If his stance isn't based on irrational fear, I might have a shot at changing his mind at least enough to admit that guns aren't so bad after all.

(No pun intended, of course.)

I do mind when the same man would actively or passively work to deny me a bowl of chocolate ice cream simply because he doesn't like it. At that point, I do have a dog in the fight.

Not all people who don't want to have anything to do with guns are activists. Many state their aversion, but add that they don't have a problem with me and mine. It's the ones who challence my choice to own/carry/use firearms that I have a problem with. The busybodies who insist on imposing their beliefs on me...whether it's religion, politics, guns...or my preferred flavor of ice cream.

LibShooter
May 21, 2011, 10:51 AM
Like most folks with passionately held beliefs, antigun activists usually have good reasons for their opinions. Sarah Brady, for instance, had her family nearly destroyed one day because a crazy guy got a gun. I don't begrudge her that belief. She earned it.

My sister doesn't like guns. In the first few years of her marriage her husband came close to shooting her accidentally on more than one occasion. God bless him, he's an idiot. Since she loves him, she focuses her disdain on guns. Again, she is allowed her opinion.

I don't blame the antigun crowd. I do blame the lawmakers and judges for their cultivated Constitutional illiteracy.

Heretic
May 21, 2011, 10:57 AM
This is America, and everyone has the right to believe anything they want to believe. I believe everyone should be required to wear purple beanies, forced to if necessary. When I try to act on my beliefs, I violate your right to dress the way you choose. I become a criminal when I violate your rights. I see a huge difference between the right to believe, and forcing my belief on others.


P.S. Sara Brady is a commie. She was rabidly anti-gun before the shooting of her husband.

THE DARK KNIGHT
May 21, 2011, 11:03 AM
Moat antis do, in fact, have a reason for being anti. You can't blame people for things they don't know.

What you see here on thehighroad.org is simply a relatively small, censored, well manicured portion of the gun owning population.

For every person on this site that's a "good gun owner" you've got a dozen morons who haven't the slightest clue about why firing at road signs from a pickup truck is a bad idea, paranoid nuts mulling over conspiracy theories, etc. etc.

Gun owners have only themselves to blame for much of the bad press.

NukemJim
May 21, 2011, 11:17 AM
or every person on this site that's a "good gun owner" you've got a dozen morons who haven't the slightest clue about why firing at road signs from a pickup truck is a bad idea, paranoid nuts mulling over conspiracy theories, etc. etc.

Source of the above statement please.

NukemJim

Tommygunn
May 21, 2011, 11:34 AM
For every person on this site that's a "good gun owner" you've got a dozen morons who haven't the slightest clue about why firing at road signs from a pickup truck is a bad idea, paranoid nuts mulling over conspiracy theories, etc. etc.

Gun owners have only themselves to blame for much of the bad press.

What a broad-brushed statement. I too would like to know its source. Certainly there's bad apples in every group, but if gun owners were that ... "moronic" life in this country would be far bloodier than it already is. Most gun owners are perfectly decent people.
As for gunowners having "only themselves to blame" that discounts the many lies and nonsensical drivel the lamestream media push on society about guns all the time.
Blame the gunowner only when the owner does something foolish as an individual, all else can be found at a different source.

Art Eatman
May 21, 2011, 12:24 PM
I did gun show tables for thirty years. Never got a hot check, which oughta say something about the generic gun buyer.

All in all, this last half-century or more of driving the nation's highways, I've seen SOME shot-up road signs, but not all that many as a percentage of all road signs.

Seems to me that Ronald Reagan had more reason than Sarah Brady to take a disliking to guns. Nancy Reagan didn't go nutzoidal against them, either.

Deanimator
May 21, 2011, 01:30 PM
Like most folks with passionately held beliefs, antigun activists usually have good reasons for their opinions. Sarah Brady, for instance, had her family nearly destroyed one day because a crazy guy got a gun. I don't begrudge her that belief. She earned it.
So similarly, if a White guy gets robbed by a Black guy, you don't begrudge the White guy joining the Klan?

How about if a Jew does something to annoy a Black guy? Do you "begrudge" the Black guy hating Jews and joining the Nation of Islam?

People have an absolute right to have primitive, imbecilic "beliefs". They have NO right AT ALL to be RESPECTED for HAVING those beliefs. In fact, I have EVERY right to DESPISE them for HAVING those beliefs, and to PUBLICLY express my contempt for them AND their beliefs.

Nushif
May 21, 2011, 01:37 PM
I think at this point the debate, if we can call it that has boiled down to moral standards.

Take for instance the example of one of our posters who claims that because the "gun scene" has sound financial planning skills, it is somehow more validated in its beliefs.
Or for instance the fact that while people want sources for bad behavior on gun owner's ends, nobody has asked for sources on the "average anti."

Let's face it, folks. We're getting wrapped around the axle here not because of guns at this point, but because the issue is so polarized that it arguably is true that the "average gun owner" (and don't tell me they don't exist, we've been arguing on the basis that the average anti exists for a while now, we have to stay logically consistent) believes something fundamentally different has merit than the "average anti."

So how about we all admit that we've bought into this notion that somehow being a gun owner makes one at least predisposed to be of better moral (read: moral, not ethical) character. And I hate to say it ... you can't argue morality with someone who doesn't share yours.

Neverwinter
May 21, 2011, 02:33 PM
So how about we all admit that we've bought into this notion that somehow being a gun owner makes one at least predisposed to be of better moral (read: moral, not ethical) character. And I hate to say it ... you can't argue morality with someone who doesn't share yours.And you definitely can't argue morality with someone whose foundation for that morality is based on superstition and logical fallacies.
See "Sarah Brady, for instance, had her family nearly destroyed one day because a crazy guy got a gun."

mljdeckard
May 21, 2011, 02:44 PM
No. I flat reject the notion that HighRoaders are not representative of most of the gun owning public. Gun owners are people who hold the means to use deadly force in their hands. Many of us every single day. And we somehow manage not to kill people. The exceptions to this are so rare as to be insignificant. I do not see at all that gun owners other than us here are idiots.

ArfinGreebly
May 21, 2011, 02:54 PM
I've addressed this in the past.

Brady is a fraud.

by ArfinGreebly

For those who believe that Mrs. Brady is somehow justified in her rabid pursuit of the elimination of "assault weapons," it is worth remembering that her husband was shot with a small calibre revolver. A revolver, moreover, that had been in the shooter's possession for years.

None of the actions taken or proposed by the Brady Campaign has ever been consistent with or appropriate to that fact.

They never sought to ban small calibre revolvers. And none of the proposed or implemented waiting periods would have had any effect on the original incident.

The original shooting was nothing more than a springboard for an agenda to proscribe the manufacture, transfer, or ownership of the most effective tools that might be employed to resist forms of tyranny.

In some earlier posts, I think I've actually stated it better. By all means have a read and see if those remarks give any more clarity.



by ArfinGreebly

She commits the same crime as Cindy Sheehan: using her "loss" as a club to intimidate and extort based on the "moral authority" conveyed by having experienced something awful, something she can assert an opponent has never had to live through.

"I am unassailable because I have suffered more than you have."

Similarly, you have to be nice to me, 'cuz I've had a bad day. It's nonsense of course.

It's contrived and dishonest.

The antidote to Sarah Brady is Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp. This woman endured more horror than Sara Brady ever will and still landed right side up, with an accurate perception of the causes of her harrowing experience. You want moral authority? You want to talk to Dr. Gratia-Hupp.

by ArfinGreebly

Sarah Brady's hatred of guns also comes from personal experience.
It's not the guns she hates.

Remember, she has her own guns. Whoever manages her security has guns.

It's not the guns.

It's YOU she hates. You refuse to do as you're told. You don't know your place. You're all uppity. You are a danger to the legitimate masters. You must be stopped, so your betters can have the control they need.

by ArfinGreebly

Carl, Sarah Brady doesn't have a phobia.

She's not afraid of guns.

She carries a gun.

The whole "poor me, I'm a victim, look at my tragic husband" thing is an ACT.

People who have met her have marveled at the incongruity of her supposed fear of guns, her gracious and cool demeanor, and the fact that she will actually show people her gun, while saying that she doesn't mean to disarm everybody, just the "wrong people."


Sarah Brady is the queen of special pleadings.

She is a liar and a fraud.

Never, never endorse this woman or anything she stands for.

Never, ever attempt to justify her evil.

Instead, shine the brightest of lights on her dishonesty, her selfishness, her pretense.

Is there anything I can say to make that clearer?

mljdeckard
May 21, 2011, 03:08 PM
I want a 'like' button for the above post.

texgunner
May 21, 2011, 03:10 PM
As the news media learned a long time ago from the public educators - "Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it becomes the truth" (or words similar to that)

I believe that quote originated from Joseph Goebels, Hitler's propaganda minister.

The majority of antis are ignorant of the truth about firearms ownership and believe the often repeated lies of the Left.

Neverwinter
May 21, 2011, 04:49 PM
No. I flat reject the notion that HighRoaders are not representative of most of the gun owning public. Gun owners are people who hold the means to use deadly force in their hands. Many of us every single day. And we somehow manage not to kill people. The exceptions to this are so rare as to be insignificant. I do not see at all that gun owners other than us here are idiots.
It is the self-selection of being on this forum that automatically precludes this board from being representative of the gun owning public. Being a THR member involves a great deal of factors which skew the selection toward a non-representative subset of the gun owning population.
Also, it would be wrong to assume that there are no gun owners here that are idiots or that all of the non-idiotic gun owners have somehow managed to all log on here.

LibShooter
May 21, 2011, 10:30 PM
...if a White guy gets robbed by a Black guy, you don't begrudge the White guy joining the Klan?

How about if a Jew does something to annoy a Black guy? Do you "begrudge" the Black guy hating Jews and joining the Nation of Islam?

Nope. No grudge against anybody who joins the KKK or The Nation. Those folks have the same right to speak freely, assemble peacefully and petition the government as the NRA or The Chamber of Commerce... as long as the Klan and Nation of Islam refrain from violence. I've never heard of The Brady Campaign burning a giant revolver on anybody's lawn.

The Brady Bunch operates pretty much like the NRA... they try to influence public opinion and government policy by disseminating the info THEY like and putting pressure on lawmakers. The fact that you and I disagree with them doesn't mean they can't push their agenda. The Bill of Rights protects their right to be wrong.

If the Bradies (or the KKK or the Nation of Islam) convince lawmakers to do something unconstitutional, I blame the lawmakers, not the private citizens exercising their rights to express themselves.

hemiram
May 22, 2011, 03:54 AM
I think my sister became rabidly anti gun for a couple reasons. One, she runs in a very antigun crowd, and when we were kids, two people we knew, one a cousin of my dad's committed suicide by .38 revolver. The cousin did it in front of a couple who came into my dad's store to buy a gun.

Deanimator
May 22, 2011, 09:02 AM
Nope. No grudge against anybody who joins the KKK or The Nation. Those folks have the same right to speak freely, assemble peacefully and petition the government as the NRA or The Chamber of Commerce... as long as the Klan and Nation of Islam refrain from violence. I've never heard of The Brady Campaign burning a giant revolver on anybody's lawn.
They have a right to be imbeciles.

They have NO right to be respected for it. I absolutely refuse to demean MYSELF by pretending to.

The Brady Bunch operates pretty much like the NRA...
...apart from the non-stop lying and trying to convince lawmakers to violate the Constitution, and to gull the ignorant and stupid into supporting it.

Yeah, other than THAT, they're identical...

If the Bradies (or the KKK or the Nation of Islam) convince lawmakers to do something unconstitutional, I blame the lawmakers, not the private citizens exercising their rights to express themselves.
So similarly, you don't blame Tom Metzger for talking those skinheads into beating an Ethiopian man to death with bats. After all, he was just "exercising his right to express himself".

Obviously, the "lib" in "libshooter" stands for "Libyan" and NOT "liberal".

Bob Shoots
May 22, 2011, 09:25 AM
We (gun owners and users) need to understand that whether we agree or understand the anti-gun person's reasons, when we fail to respond rationally and reasonably, we give them ammunition to perpetuate the belief that guns (and gun owners) are not to be trusted. Some of the statements made by gun owners (some of them, self-proclaimed "gun nuts") can easily lead to anti-gun fears of the gun owners. That will hurt our cause more than anything the press can do. Please respond rationally and respectfully to the ant-gun people you meet. Being viewed as a rational person will help your case more than adamant recitations of "...from my cold dead fingers."

LibShooter
May 22, 2011, 09:45 AM
So similarly, you don't blame Tom Metzger for talking those skinheads into beating an Ethiopian man to death with bats. After all, he was just "exercising his right to express himself".

There is a difference between lobbying for legislation and conspiracy to commit murder. I confess I don't know where the line is, but it is somewhere between Brady and Metzger.

...apart from the non-stop lying and trying to convince lawmakers to violate the Constitution, and to gull the ignorant and stupid into supporting it.

Here's one reason our side is not making more progress. We know we're right. Therefore many of us believe the other side's leaders must be evil and their followers must be stupid. First, it's hard to win fence-sitters to our side by calling them ignorant.

But, more importantly, we are underestimating and misunderstanding anti-gun leaders. This is an issue reasonable people can disagree on. I wish the founders hadn't put the first clause in the Second Amendment, but they did. Let's be honest and admit it muddies the meaning of the clearly written second clause.

Folks like the Bradys are wrong. But for the most part they believe what they say and are saying it because they really think they are doing good. That's not lying... that's being wrong.

"Libyan" and NOT "liberal".

:) Give that another try. I think you can come up with something better.:)

HGUNHNTR
May 22, 2011, 09:51 AM
Originally Posted by Cryogaijin
Paladin7: I've spelled your name correctly, try to get mine right.

Just because there are a ton of people misusing a term does NOT mean it is correct to misuse the term. If you had used the term "Statist" I wouldn't have objected. The problem here is that just about everything that describes a classic liberal describes me. I'm not a democrat, I'm not a republican, I'm not a libertarian, I'm not a communist, I'm not a socialist, I'm not a totalitarian, I'm not a conservative. I'm a progressive, liberal, conservationist gun-owner.

People who slander the concept of liberalism are slandering me. You can be the nicest person in the world, but the moment you start frothing at the mouth about "liberals" you've lost me.


Thank you Cryogaijin---The definition of the word Liberal has been mutilated and used as a marketing word much like Assault Weapon, and High capacity murder clips. Just as you poke fun at those that incorrectly use these firearms related terms, and urge them to do research to find out their true meaning--- I would invite you to do the same about the definition of Liberal.

Deanimator
May 22, 2011, 09:55 AM
There is a difference between lobbying for legislation and conspiracy to commit murder. I confess I don't know where the line is, but it is somewhere between Brady and Metzger.
Precious little difference. They're lobbying for legislation which would make it IMPOSSIBLE to defend myself from such an attack. They lend aid and comfort to the Metzgers and the John William Kings.

First, it's hard to win fence-sitters to our side by calling them ignorant.
You need to SHOW them they're ignorant, and ESPECIALLY that they're being LIED to. In my experience, they get unhappy when they find that out.

But, more importantly, we are underestimating and misunderstanding anti-gun leaders.
I understand them every bit as much as I understand David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.

HGUNHNTR
May 22, 2011, 10:02 AM
Quote:
First, it's hard to win fence-sitters to our side by calling them ignorant.

You need to SHOW them they're ignorant, and ESPECIALLY that they're being LIED to. In my experience, they get unhappy when they find that out.

--Well Deanimator you are on the right track, but trying show someone that they are ignorant, and then getting them to take your side is bordering on impossible. Just look how well it has worked in this thread, or many others that have cropped up lately that seem to cause a divide on THR (the Ted Nugent thread for instance). I think a better idea is to allow people to realize their own misconceptions, unless they are extremely mature, and very good at self analysis.

Deanimator
May 22, 2011, 10:31 AM
I think a better idea is to allow people to realize their own misconceptions, unless they are extremely mature, and very good at self analysis.
HOW are they going to "realize" them, when virtually EVERY thing they hear is misinformation or disinformation CALCULATED to REINFORCE those "misconceptions"?

Movement anti-gunners operate on the same intellectual and moral level as Holocaust deniers. Their INTENT is to deceive.

Where do you think the Holocaust deniers would be if 95% of fiction and non-fiction TV, and 99% of movies repeated their talking points? How about if the schools did the same thing AND encouraged students to become involved in the movement?

The gun control industry is a structure of LIES. Without breaking through those lies, it would remain inviolate. Fortunately, people have been VERY vocally pointing out the lies, especially those about concealed carry.

HGUNHNTR
May 22, 2011, 11:07 AM
It is done slowly, by face to face contact. How many gun owners are there?

Nushif
May 22, 2011, 11:14 AM
This is getting insane. Are some of you people reading your own replies? It's about as far from "civil discourse" and "rational exchange of thoughts" as it gets!

Would *you* be swayed by someone using the kind of fervor and fanaticism you're writing?

Relax. Acknowledge their point of view and go from there, but simply saying "You're lying, you're wrong and I disagree with all you say" is hardly effective. And that's pretty much what's been happening.
Let's see if we can find an image to compare this to ...
You don't see missionaries yelling, screaming and telling the locals their beliefs are "ignorant" or "wrong." At least no successful ones.
Why do you think you'll convert an Anti in any other way than a missionary?!

HGUNHNTR
May 22, 2011, 11:17 AM
^+1 I keep coming back here for the small rays of hope that sometimes shine through.

Heretic
May 22, 2011, 11:20 AM
Sara Brady said "We cannot create the communist ideal in America so long as the people are armed and able to resist us". I'm looking for the source right now and will post it when I find it.

This is a touchy issue, and perhaps it would be better if we all calmed down. Get a coffee, have a smoke, and agree to disagree.



P.S. Please don't confuse a liberal with a leftist.

Nushif
May 22, 2011, 11:44 AM
You know what the ironic thing is?

In a truly leftist state the whole population should be armed for easy revolutions in case the populace gets tired of the currently elected government and the government went corrupt.

I think a lot of local lefties really don't quite understand their own doctrine. Not that most other do, but they at least should.

happygeek
May 22, 2011, 12:58 PM
In a truly leftist state the whole population should be armed for easy revolutions in case the populace gets tired of the currently elected government and the government went corrupt.


Once The Dear Leader gains power, anyone advocating a repeat of the method he used to come to power is a counter-revolutionary and is sent to the gulag for re-education.

I was talking to a guy from Australia awhile back and the funny thing was I don't think his media makes much or any mention of the fact that the gun laws in the U.S. vary wildly depending on the state. I'm guessing his news sources give him the impression that D.C.'s murder rate is occurring in a place with Vermont's gun laws. He was saying that the U.S.'s gun laws were bad and I simply asked him "which state?".

If you were talking to a guy who was saying "we should ban assault weapons!" I'd ask him exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon". Ditto for "cop killer bullets" and a couple other buzz phrases the anti-gun groups love so much. If the guy has any curiosity at all he'll look the stuff up on Google and Wikipedia and realize the anti-gun groups are taking him for a fool.

I wouldn't call him ignorant to his face though. I might call Paul Helmke an idiot though, he did say AZ was one of the few states that doesn't ban multiple round magazines after all.

Cryogaijin
May 22, 2011, 03:05 PM
"cop killer bullets" The hilarious thing with this concept is that it would actually be trivial to come up with a formula that would give definitive data on this. "This much energy spread out over this much sectional area will penetrate a class 2 vest" etc etc. It is simple engineering that can be backed up with exhaustive testing. But do the anti's do it? NOPE. They think things like spray-on teflon or a soft iron core will make a bullet Armor Piercing, because they saw it on Lethal Weapon.

IMO, Lethal Weapon 3 would have been more interesting if the baddies were wandering around with Tokarevs. . .

LibShooter
May 22, 2011, 04:40 PM
Movement anti-gunners operate on the same intellectual and moral level as Holocaust deniers. Their INTENT is to deceive.

Here's a perfect example of the "frothy at the mouth" language that leaves folks shaking their heads and walking away. Reasonable people know that's just not true and stop listening to anything else you say.

Sara Brady said "We cannot create the communist ideal in America so long as the people are armed and able to resist us". I'm looking for the source right now and will post it when I find it.

I suspect you wont find a credible source for this quote because I suspect Ms. Brady never said it. Even if she really believes such a thing, which is doubtful, she certainly wouldn't say it in public. If she did, it wouldn't be hard to find. It would have made some headlines.

Here's another example of how we've gone to ridiculous extremes to demonize Sara Brady. It's not good enough to have for an "enemy" a misguided lady who took up the gun control cause because her life was devastated by a guy with a pistol. We have to create a mythic amoral Communist bent on dominating America.

Brock Landers
May 22, 2011, 10:39 PM
Well if they didn't have reasons, this thread along with Ted Nugent's TV interview the other day would certainly provide them some in the form of the stereotypical "rabid gun fanatic" quotes and sound bites.

Seriously, guys.. People disagree with you on one issue and they are ignorant, racist, holocaust denying, freedom-hating, anti-America communists? This type of talk strikes me as low-road, pathetic, and harmful to the pro-gun cause.

Nushif
May 23, 2011, 12:00 AM
People disagree with you on one issue and they are ignorant, racist, holocaust denying, freedom-hating, anti-America communists?

Your forgot democrats and liberals. Also Libyans.

evan price
May 23, 2011, 12:26 AM
I've divided them up into three groups:

1. People who have had some sort of tragedy in their lives relating to firearms. These people have a need to lay blame for the tragedy somewhere. Since people are to be forgiven the guilty party must be the gun. You will see this sort of blame a lot in urban neighborhoods where the youths get involved in pharmaceutical transactions and shoot each other. The family members know that their little child was really a choir singer who delivered books to shut ins and was on the path to get their life back together & were it not for the fact that these GUNS are all over their society their little darling would still be above ground. For example Toby Hoover of Ohio anti-gun fame blames her husband's death by an escaped violent felon during a botched robbery of the hardware store he worked as the fault of the lax attitude towards gun ownership and the number of guns in the world. Also people who have had a suicide, hunting accident, etc will blame the gun instead of their dead loved one.

2. People who have a fear of guns that borders on insanity. The thought of a gun in the hand of anyone but a designated government agent fills them with dread, panic, and hysteria. The gun as an object holds a horror that would be comaprable to seeing the gas chambers at Dachau, the obliettes of medieval France, or the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge. These people will usually base their fear on the "intended purpose is to kill" and the fact that they themselves would not be trusted to own or carry a gun without using it, so everyone must be just as immature.

3. Persons with a definite agenda that requires disarming of the populus. For example most Communists and Socialists who know that an armed populus can never be controlled or destroyed. Big government liberals who want world control. Idealists and big thinkers who believe that use of force should be reserved to the provenance of the ruling elite.

And that's how I see it.

RichBMW
May 23, 2011, 05:30 AM
Seriously, guys.. People disagree with you on one issue and they are ignorant, racist, holocaust denying, freedom-hating, anti-America communists? This type of talk strikes me as low-road, pathetic, and harmful to the pro-gun cause.

I'm with you.

KodiakBeer
May 23, 2011, 05:43 AM
Forget all the psychodrama. Anti's are anti because it's the politically correct position to take. It's the same reason they think global warming is caused by SUV's and that all social problems can be solved by taxing the rich. They're stupid.

Cryogaijin
May 23, 2011, 05:57 AM
Honestly I don't see as much "intent to deceive" as "ignorants spreading ignorance."

Just take a look at the gun laws. . . Banning of .50 rifles? When was one of those ever used in a crime in the US? But they're scarey looking and SHOOT THROUGH SCHOOLS according to the movies. Given how they are portrayed in the movies it is reasonable for people to fear the movie guns.

It all has to do with perception, and how far the general populace is from reality. Lets take a recent blockbuster for example: The Dark Knight. This is an AMAZINGLY popular movie where The Joker declares war against the Gotham city police and the city in general. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for a HUGE FBI task force with national guard or US Marshalls backup to step in and take over. RL, Gotham would not be ALLOWED to stand alone. This is OBVIOUS.

Yet people ate it up, and loved its "gritty, dark, realistic" overtones compared to other superhero movies. I don't view it as any more realistic than Superman is, tbh. The reactions of the world at large were WRONG, outright. However people in general don't think "how would that play out IRL?" they just let the media stream into their graymatter without any real processing.

Deanimator
May 23, 2011, 06:15 AM
Here's a perfect example of the "frothy at the mouth" language that leaves folks shaking their heads and walking away. Reasonable people know that's just not true and stop listening to anything else you say.
Honest people know it is true.

In FidoNet, one of the biggest anti-gunners in POLITICS, who declared himself "as one with the ACLU", supported RACIALLY differential, warrantless, RAS-less police stops for guns.

In usenet, the ONLY people who ever used racial slurs against me, apart from actual neo-Nazis, were White anti-gunners who didn't like being disobeyed when they handed out the gun control marching orders.

A few years ago, I was in a McDonald's in Lakewood, Ohio. The elderly cleaner there started giving me crap about my NRA ball cap. He went on to declare that the NRA should be "banned". When I noted that the last time organizations started getting banned, we somehow misplaced 6,000,000 Jews, he opined that he "wasn't sure that was such a bad thing".

The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism.

Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.

Deanimator
May 23, 2011, 06:20 AM
Relax. Acknowledge their point of view and go from there, but simply saying "You're lying, you're wrong and I disagree with all you say" is hardly effective. And that's pretty much what's been happening.
I don't "acknowledge" the point of view of NAMBLA, the Aryan Brotherhood, or Gemaa Islamiya. There's no reason for me to indulge the dishonesty and evil of VPC or the Brady organization... and most ESPECIALLY the fifth column of the comatose AHSA.

Deanimator
May 23, 2011, 06:23 AM
Honestly I don't see as much "intent to deceive" as "ignorants spreading ignorance."
Oh, there's very real intent to deceive.

Josh Sugermann himself admitted that it was his INTENT to confuse "assault weapons" and machine guns.

Internet anti-gun zombies are known for the most craven dishonesty, from manufactured "statistics" to altered quotes.

The best way to deal with a liar is to give him EVERY opportunity to PROVE he's a liar.

Deanimator
May 23, 2011, 06:30 AM
Forget all the psychodrama. Anti's are anti because it's the politically correct position to take. It's the same reason they think global warming is caused by SUV's and that all social problems can be solved by taxing the rich. They're stupid.
Certainly the vast majority of the rank and file are ignorant. Some of them are mind numbingly stupid.

But the people at the top are evil con men, just like those at the top of the Holocaust denial industry, or any religious cult. They're the malicious 1% at the top manipulating the 99% of puppets underneath them. The reasonably intelligent in the rank and file have just been brainwashed. Show them FACTS and they can be peeled off. Inevitably, there are dolts who WANT to be deceived. NOTHING can change their minds. They're the type who end up wearing the suicide belts in the Middle East.

As I said, if every other episode of Law & Order pushed the Holocaust denial talking points, and it was taught to children in school, how many people would believe the Zundels and the Metzgers?

Erik M
May 23, 2011, 07:20 AM
I have become absolutely disillusioned with politics since the last election. I used to attend rallys and town hall events. Now I just prefer to invest reasonable amounts of money to 2nd amendment organizations.

Referring to OPs question, the individuals that I have worked with and attended college that I ever discussed the subject with were anti just because it was in line with all of the other subjects that there side of the isle believes in.

I once had a female acquaintance question why i was a gun owner and attending a state university. her thought process was that only criminals have guns, and eventually the cops will take them all away, and that going to college is futile because eventually the liberal government will pay minimum wage workers and check drawers more than a skilled laborer or company executive. Its all one huge ultra-naive herd mentality.

PursesRHolsters
May 23, 2011, 08:50 AM
I have found that most WOMEN are anti- gun because they have never been introduced to them properly. Most of them have never handled a gun or been taught responsible gun ownership by anyone. My dad taught me in baby steps starting when I was 7, as I do with my son now. I think its pretty funny how an very anti- gun woman not only trusts her spouse to protect her and her family with his bare hands, but also that when they are a victim of a crime they are the first to go out and buy one. I say Im gonna protect myself BEFORE I become a victim. I shoot monthly at the range for fun, and hope to never have to use one for protection.
Deleted and just when you think Im being sexist you should know that Im am a 30 yr. old at home mom and a very responsible gun owner.

Deanimator
May 23, 2011, 09:26 AM
I have found that most WOMEN are anti- gun because they have never been introduced to them properly.
Most of the anti-gun women I've talked to were tricked into believing the lie of police "protection".

At Christmas dinner a few years ago, I stunned some female relatives with the following:

Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

Protect yourself or don't get protected at all.

They actually BELIEVED that not only did the police have a legal duty to "protect" them as individuals, but that in fact, they COULD. I didn't bring up the example of my godsister who was stabbed to death by her boyfriend. The police showed up to draw a chalk outline around her. Not much "protecting" took place.

mopar92
May 23, 2011, 09:38 AM
My opinion is that they are loud, scary, and designed to inflict harm/kill... The reality is that we gun nuts overlook the first two( we like that!!) , and we understand that we can prevent kill/harm to us.

Heretic
May 23, 2011, 10:56 AM
Sorry, but lobbying to ban guns and conspiracy to commit murder are the same thing. The only people who want to ban guns are control freaks and criminals.

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 11:31 AM
So good to see Godwin's Law being invoked. You cannot have an intellectual, logical and reasonable discussion theese days without it.

Not all people who don't want to have anything to do with guns are activists. Many state their aversion, but add that they don't have a problem with me and mine. It's the ones who challence my choice to own/carry/use firearms that I have a problem with. The busybodies who insist on imposing their beliefs on me...whether it's religion, politics, guns...or my preferred flavor of ice cream.


QFT

cavman
May 23, 2011, 11:43 AM
Going back to my NY guy that has now become a Bullseye shooter....

He said that in NY it was what was told to them over and over, and then what eventually became "known". It was only after he left and landed in a State that was not such a stalwart in continuing "thoughts of the evils of gun ownership" that his eyes opened and he started trying the shooting sports.

With so many NYC people moving to other states, along with "liberal" Californians as well, it is up to us, those in the "free" states to...

Take an anti to the range and have them have FUN learning the fundamentals!

Heck, even Supreme Court Justice Scalia took SCJ Kagan skeek shooting last year to my local club.

luke-warm antis know only what they have been told. We need to show them whenever we can that safe handling and gun ownership is possible

Havegunjoe
May 23, 2011, 02:41 PM
Most Antiís opinions against guns are formed by emotion not facts or experience. ďGuns = BadĒ end of discussion. That is why it is so hard to talk with them about the subject on a reasonable level.

Vector
May 23, 2011, 06:45 PM
then there is the learned approach( which is more than likely the most common)



There is probably something to what you are thinking. For instance, I know a woman who considers herself a die-hard Democrat. She was raised in a southern family that has a long memory dating back to the days of Mr. Lincoln such as the destruction of their way of life and such ills as carpetbaggers. They call themselves yellow dog Democrats, meaning they would rather vote for a yellow dog if it ran as a Democrat rather than vote for a Republican.
Knowing her beliefs on social issues, one day I decided to prove to her she was actually a Rep at heart, but just raised to believe she was a Dem.
I gave her a litmus test of all the different issues such as freedom of expression, nuclear weapons as a deterrent as well as nuclear power. Of course I touched upon abortion, gun control, affirmative action, homosexual "rights", death penalty, etc. In each and every case she believed in the Rep way of viewing those issues, yet she still believed in voting Dem.

The best I could do was try to convince her to forget about whatever irrational beliefs she had about Reps and understand that the Civil War was over a long time ago. She said at best that she would just not vote, but she could never bring herself to vote Rep. So clearly this is a case of learned behavior just as you allude to regarding guns.

sterling180
May 23, 2011, 07:01 PM
I have found that most WOMEN are anti- gun because they have never been introduced to them properly. Most of them have never handled a gun or been taught responsible gun ownership by anyone. My dad taught me in baby steps starting when I was 7, as I do with my son now.
Yes thats absolutely true about being brought up responsibly around guns&unfortunately in other countries like Great Britain&Australia,there are alot of ignorant&bigoted,liberal,women&girls whom often refer to the hobby of sports-shooting as a male,egotistical sport,which is extensions of their manhoods&there should be no excuses to own a gun.Of course they said far ruder things about us gun owners,(That I wont dare repeat on here:-)which of course were aimed at us males&when they finished their sexist remarks,they started by calling us men gun nuts&people who lacked courage,whop couldn't get a girl,so they turned to the gun:rolleyes:.It was two women who managed to help to of gotten 850,000 signitures to ban handguns in the UK,following Dunblane&most of them were moms of small kids.
In Cumbria however,it seemed that most people(Including women:-)accepted firearms as a way of life&never petitioned for an outright ban on all guns-openly in front of Sky News.
If you want to know what politically, engineered-socialism is all about,by the BBC,then I suggest you watch this.Mike Yardley,a shooting teacher&the big,guy from Arm Britain,who is an acquantaince of mine,didn't stand a chance in this supposidly civilised&rational debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dll11jACnYs

BIGGBAY90
May 23, 2011, 07:25 PM
Drug dealers,muggers,robbers even kids get hold of guns going to schools---all that people see is that they are getting guns guns guns and all they here is bad bad bad thing happening---what can we expect (i don't blame them(the anti's) until one day there is a national educational program of equal information for safety and responsibilty of gun owner and not just about the bad guy

kingpin008
May 23, 2011, 07:40 PM
No, they don't have a reason. Blaming guns for crimes committed by people with guns is ludicrous. They're letting their emotions override their intellect.

So while I suppose I can understand it, I disagree whole-heartedly that they have an actual reason to be anti-gun.

22-rimfire
May 23, 2011, 07:48 PM
Anti gun people believe that eliminating or strongly controlling guns would make our society more peaceful. Everyone is looking for the easy answer to violence and there is no easy answer. People are essentially animals with a more developed brain.

I think more women are anti-gun than men overall. The male deep down is still conditioned by society to be the king of beasts (mankind). Men overall are more competitive physically than the average woman. Men have a more basic grasp of group sports and competition. All that said, there are many men that are anti-gun.

Many anti-gun people are essentially pacifists. Many of these people deplore violence and consider themselves somewhat intellectual. They feel that having firearms in a civilized society is like a lit fuse and it is often just a matter of how long the fuse is before something happens like somebody going “postal”. Gun owners accept the possibility that somebody might go postal, but they believe that the right (freedom) is worth the cost to society and that even if guns were strictly controlled, it would not prevent someone going postal anyway. It is a mental problem not a firearm problem. The gun is the tool.

Effective elimination of private ownership of firearms in US society may ultimately save some lives. But the cost is too great in terms of individual freedom and could cause just the opposite. Those hell bent on committing violence against another man would simply find another way to commit their violence. All you have to do is look at Great Britain and Australia and their gun control measures while claiming they are a free society. Anti-gun people would say that it takes these leaps of government control to take society to the next level. I’m not so sure as humans are basically animals and animals compete and fight. It is all about power. Power is to control the lives of the sheeple and use them to advance your agenda.

Then there is the government tyranny aspect of ultimate use of firearms in the US. Guns provide a balance to US society that does not exist in most countries. Obviously a citizen reprisal to government tyranny would be costly, but it always exists. It is happening in many African countries as well as the Middle East. Even during the American Revolution for independence from Great Britain, I read that only about 50% supported independence and probably less supported it at the early stages of what became the revolution.

TexasBill
May 23, 2011, 07:52 PM
Good luck with that. I know a lot of people blame "left-wing" media and it's true there is a measure of that, but the fact is that, like sex, violence sells. Most media journalism, especially at the local level, is mired in lurid reporting. As Don Henley said in the song, "We love dirty laundry."

If there are no murders, a bloody traffic accident will take the lead at the top of the newscast. One famous person gives a million dollars to a charity for crippled orphans; another cheats on his wife. Guess who's the headliner? The good guy gets mentioned only if there's time left over for some "filler."

Besides, it requires some extra effort to promote gun safety and it's easy to portray guns and the people who use them in a bad light. Even hunters; I remember when Florida had a severe problem with deer overpopulation and wanted to expand the hunting season. Cleveland Amory made a big deal about it and how the Fund for Animals was going to "save" the deer. The expanded hunt was canceled, Amory and his gang made less than a half-dozen rescues and thousands of deer starved to death. But you didn't see that last part on the evening news.

SlamFire1
May 23, 2011, 07:58 PM
Sheep can't help being afraid. It is just they way they are.

JellyJar
May 23, 2011, 10:07 PM
All this palaver is silly....The real question should be....Do the antis have any valid reasons for being anti! :banghead:

Of course they have reasons. I used to have reasons for being anti also until I decided to find the truth for myself instead relying on ignorant news stories and teachers who should not be teaching. Today I am as staunch a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms as you will find.

So, are there any valid reasons for being oppose to RKBA? NO!

Neverwinter
May 24, 2011, 01:54 AM
Forget all the psychodrama. Anti's are anti because it's the politically correct position to take. It's the same reason they think global warming is caused by SUV's and that all social problems can be solved by taxing the rich. They're stupid.Gun owners accept the possibility that somebody might go postal, but they believe that the right (freedom) is worth the cost to society and that even if guns were strictly controlled, it would not prevent someone going postal anyway. It is a mental problem not a firearm problem. The gun is the tool.
The anti-gun people are too focused on the tools. SUVs and taxes are just tools that are symptoms of underlying problems. Just as SUVs are a symptom of willful excess and poor environmental awareness and taxing the rich is a symptom of the efforts to deal with the fallout of extreme concentration of wealth, the misuse of guns is a symptom of deeper societal issues that must be addressed.

Our recent tragedies involving those with mental health issues with guns is starting a dialog into the status of the mental health programs of our country. Increasing accessibility for treatment may not prevent the next spree killer, but denying care to those most at risk will put the rest of us at risk.

wacki
May 24, 2011, 02:22 AM
I find most people have plenty of reasons for believing what they do and for doing what they do.
Otherwise they wouldn't right?

[B]Personally, I think the notion that anyone who is opposed to guns is by default uninformed or "doesn't know the truth" is a very, very slippery slope. People may have very good reasons for being against private gun ownership. You or me just don't share them.

Very good reasons? I'd love to hear them. I bet I've read 10,000 pages of text on gun control, listened to countless gun control debates, read National Academy of Science Reports, etc.... and I can't think of a single "very good" reason why it's in the citizenry's interest to ban private gun ownership. Well, not one supported by scientific facts anyway. And as a scientist that's all that matters to me.

Now, if you were dictator and you wanted to control the public, THEN I could think of many very good reasons to disarm the public. But that is another debate....

I really wish the first response in this thread was a little better.. :-\

Busyhands94
May 24, 2011, 02:25 AM
i don't think they understand logic.

Nushif
May 24, 2011, 08:59 AM
I really wish the first response in this thread was a little better.. :-\

I really wish half this thread wasn't full of "talk-show rhetoric, too. But we can't all have what we want, sadly. :-\

gbw
May 24, 2011, 10:30 AM
Their logic is fine, though we may not like it or agree with it. By and large they are not paranoid, stupid, sheeple, cowards, fascists or communists. Overall they do a better job stating their case than we do of ours, although they have their share of charlatans. Our side generally prefers to sidestep inconvenient truths (sorry), restate the facts and arguments as we wish they were, and then proceed to decimate the antiís, and win our fantasy debate. Too often we come off sounding shallow, dogmatic, narrow minded, unreasonable, unsympathetic, and silly. Much of this thread reinforces that view.

Generally the anti arguments go:

Guns were invented and are designed mainly to kill. This is correct.

People misusing guns can and do, by far, kill and maim more people faster, with less effort, at greater range, and with less skill, thought or planning than they can do using any other artifact generally available to the public. Also correct.

Absent a clear and timely warning, it is difficult to impossible for civilians, armed or not, to defend against someone intent on misusing a gun. Correct.

In any conflict that becomes heated or violent, the presence of a loaded gun increases exponentially the possibility of death or serious injury. Correct again.

Despite this, in this country guns are available to anyone, anytime, for any reason or no reason, without training or any other form of demonstrated suitability for owning such lethal weapons. Correct.

Irresponsible cretins leave loaded guns lying around where children find them. Sadly, correct.

Equally dim gun owners shoot up road signs, cattle, and anything else that moves. True. (I used to live in Michigan. Do not ever go on public land the first day of deer season.) Their point is that whatever the benefits of rkba, there are far too many irresponsible idiots with guns, and they have effectively forfeited the right for all of us. Not correct, but you have to admit they do have a point. Even the folks on this forum avoid public shooting ranges. Why? So they donít have to be around the public with guns.

The antis do not, at least those Iíve read, claim that fewer guns will reduce crime, although we keep claiming they do. They do state that countries where guns are banned have lower incidences of violent injury and death, and that the injuries that do occur tend to be less severe. Correct.

The second amendment refers to an organized, armed militia (the National Guard), not to individuals. Clearly incorrect, but they sure work hard to make the case. Donít forget SCOTUS came within one vote of declaring them correct.

Had my say. Please donít bother with the knife, ball bat, automobile, or whatever- else sob stories. Weíre talking here about guns. They are in a class of their own, and everybody with any sense on both sides knows it.

Tommygunn
May 24, 2011, 10:41 AM
.... Generally the anti arguments go:

Guns were invented and are designed mainly to kill. This is correct.

People misusing guns can and do, by far, kill and maim more people faster, with less effort, at greater range, and with less skill, thought or planning than they can do using any other artifact generally available to the public. Also correct.........

I dunno. Really, people had no problem at all slicing, dicing, and dismembering their fellow humans prior to the existance of guns. It's sort of like fast food in a way; they didn't have that back then and realized they had to catch their meal, prepare it, and cook it before they ate it. Or grow and harvest it. But they weren't couch potatos like we are.
Everything's relative.
Going after a bad guy with a mace, knife, lance, pike, crossbow or sword must not have appeared anymore problematic back then than eating ....

The antis do not, at least those I’ve read, claim that fewer guns will reduce crime, although we keep claiming they do. They do state that countries where guns are banned have lower incidences of violent injury and death, and that the injuries that do occur tend to be less severe. Correct.

Many of the antis I have heard have made this claim. It is the single most prevelant argument I've heard.

In any conflict that becomes heated or violent, the presence of a loaded gun increases exponentially the possibility of death or serious injury. Correct again.

I've been in a number of "heated debates" and have never had this happen. I think if it were true society would be far bloodier than it is.

jhb
May 24, 2011, 10:49 AM
allot of anti's do not understand guns, have never owned or shot one and just don't get it. it's allot of not understanding how a gun works and the old fear of the unknown. they fear guns like a kid fears a chainsaw or bandsaw or any power tool. until you show them how to use it properly and safely, and the silly unjustified fear melts away. it's really no different.

also allot of anti's live in the suburbs and cities and see no use for a gun. ironically i guess it could be said a gun makes more sense in the city now then the country.:)

LibShooter
May 24, 2011, 10:56 AM
Really, people had no problem at all slicing, dicing, and dismembering their fellow humans prior to the existance of guns.

Really Tommy. You know a guy with a gun and plenty of ammo can do a lot more killing and maiming than a guy with a sword or mace or pointy stick. Otherwise our infantry would still be fielding units of pikemen.

Guns are different. You can run away from a guy with a knife. You can't run faster than a bullet. You can't buy your first bow today and kill 20 people in a crowd with it tomorrow. You can't walk into a school with a broadsword hidden in your pants and kill a dozen students in homeroom.

The very reason guns are useful for their intended uses make them perfect for tragic abuse. Pretending that's not true does our cause less than no good.

oldbear
May 24, 2011, 11:01 AM
Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

In a work No! Do most believe they are only trying to make the world a safer place to live, yes. are they wrong generally yes.

Tommygunn
May 24, 2011, 11:15 AM
Really Tommy. You know a guy with a gun and plenty of ammo can do a lot more killing and maiming than a guy with a sword or mace or pointy stick. Otherwise our infantry would still be fielding units of pikemen.

Guns are different. You can run away from a guy with a knife. You can't run faster than a bullet. You can't buy your first bow today and kill 20 people in a crowd with it tomorrow. You can't walk into a school with a broadsword hidden in your pants and kill a dozen students in homeroom.

The very reason guns are useful for their intended uses make them perfect for tragic abuse. Pretending that's not true does our cause less than no good.

Another way to look at it; a guy with a sword will not run out of ammo, and he can still do plenty of killing. He just has to be a little more patient, is all.:rolleyes:
I think back then people likely had nastier mindsets than today, except maybe for gang members.
We don't arm soldiers with swords today because they don't make sense in an environment of projectile weapons.
You can run away from a guy with a knife .....if you see him before he rams it into your back, sure. How about being surrounded by five people with knives? ? ?
Sometime during the 1990s a British nutcake ran through Harrod's Department store in London with a knife, attacking 18 people before he left, a pretty respectable total for someone who apparantly felt he didn't need a Glock.

As far as hiding broadswords in pants, true. How about a stiletto? A bowie knife?
Changing the equation is going to bollix up the results, you see.
The right tool for the job .....
Different tools=different tactics still = death.

LibShooter
May 24, 2011, 11:54 AM
Another way to look at it; a guy with a sword will not run out of ammo...

Yep, a well trained guy with a sword is likely to kill every unarmed person who runs TOWARD him. A barely trained guy with a gun can kill a lot of guys who are running AWAY from him.

And a guy who sneaks up behind somebody and plunges a knife in his back is likely to kill one guy... but the guy standing beside the victim has a good chance to get away.

And five guys with knives are probably going to dispatch one victim. But one guy with a gun has a good chance to dispatch five guys with or without knives.

And one crazy guy injuring 18 innocents in London with a knife is noteworthy because it seems nearly impossible. One crazy guy with a gun who goes bersek in a mall would be noteworthy because he only managed to injure 18.

And if those boys had walked into Columbine High School armed with stilettos, I doubt anyone outside of Colorado would have ever heard of it.

And you made my point eloquently with this:
We don't arm soldiers with swords today because they don't make sense in an environment of projectile weapons.

Antis are often anti because guns instill a feeling of helplessness. That's an understandable feeling. An unarmed person is more helpless in the presence of a bad guy with a gun than a bad guy armed with any other weapon readily available. They and we simply have different strategies for dealing with that helplessness. They want to disarm everybody so the bad guys are as helpless as the victims. An understandable but flawed strategy.

We prefer to arm ourselves so as not to be helpless. Our strategy is a little better because there is a chance that it might work.

Heretic
May 24, 2011, 12:02 PM
Wow, what a heated debate has been started here. Remember, we are on the same side here. The "anti's" are the problem, not our fellows. Lets point our proverbial guns downrange.

Tommygunn
May 24, 2011, 12:27 PM
Yep, a well trained guy with a sword is likely to kill every unarmed person who runs TOWARD him. A barely trained guy with a gun can kill a lot of guys who are running AWAY from him.

And a guy who sneaks up behind somebody and plunges a knife in his back is likely to kill one guy... but the guy standing beside the victim has a good chance to get away.

And five guys with knives are probably going to dispatch one victim. But one guy with a gun has a good chance to dispatch five guys with or without knives.

As I said;
Changing the equation is going to bollix up the results, you see.;)

Loosedhorse
May 24, 2011, 01:43 PM
I believe most folks who are "anti-gun" simply dislike or are afraid of guns emotionally. They then back-track reasons (ratinalizations) for why their emotion is correct.

There is a wonderfully little TV episode on this, "Gun Nation" from the FX program 30 Days (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205015/synopsis). Did a great job portraying how deeply emotional this issue is for some people.

The necessary rationalizations are:

1) Gun ownership is not a right (The SCOTUS made a mistake).
2) Well, gun ownership might be a right, but only to flintlocks, or maybe revolvers--certainly not a right to more than the government says you can have.
3) Guns are designed to kill people.
4) Guns are useful for murder and suicide, but useless for self-defense.
5) Okay, maybe not useless for self-defense, but certainly unnecessary, given all the harm they do and how little harm they prevent.
6) Police are different. It is okay if they have guns. Soldiers, probably not--it would be best if there was no war, you know?
And most importantly:
7) We'd all be better off if there weren't any guns. Well, I'd be better off, and that's what should count.

To be fair, I think the opposite stance of many pro-gun folks is also chiefly driven by their (positive) emotional responses toward firearms and their uses, and one occassionally hears some pretty iffy "facts" used to support gun rights.

Vector
May 24, 2011, 02:45 PM
They do state that countries where guns are banned have lower incidences of violent injury and death, and that the injuries that do occur tend to be less severe. Correct.



Every time I read something like this it makes me :banghead: because it is not correct.

You cannot compare cultures that are uniform in race, religion, etc., like Japan to places as diverse as the USA. Yet the media does their part by pointing out how a certain country/s have little crime or murders because of the lack of guns. Yet they always leave out better comparative analogies such as Switzerland where almost every household has not only a firearm, but an automatic weapon. They leave the Swiss out because their violent crime/murder rates are incredibly low despite the overwhelming prevalence of guns.

Tommygunn
May 24, 2011, 02:48 PM
When you can cherrypick what other countries you're comparing, you can pick the non violent ones and that gives the impression that gun control works.
IIRC Russia has strick gun control but they have a lot of violence, also Brazil.
Also, Vector makes a good point about cultural differences having a strong influence on violence.

Ignition Override
May 24, 2011, 03:35 PM
My Dad spent twenty three years flying tactical and then transport planes in the AFRES/ANG (F-51, RF-84F through C-130 H). The point is that he was not liberal in his younger years, but he had never pursued guns as a hobby, never hunted or even owned a gun.

As my interest in guns as a hobby began only a few years ago, I tried to question the his impression that nobody needs a (semi-auto) AK-47 clone. Several years ago, being totally uninformed, I also was puzzled by the arguements that civilians in peacetime might need one.
The only thing which came to mind was that people aren't conditioned to fear the Ruger Mini 30 with a large mag, or M-1 Carbine, which can be just as deadly.

Anyway, I mentioned how low violent crime rates are in Switzerland despite so many homes having a rifle.
My Dad's calm response was that their type of people or culture (law-abiding etc) makes it a much more peaceful situation than what we have in the US.

How do any of you guys/gals counter such a response? After I had thought about it, it seemed that the opposite is the case: that our street cultures which are violent (if some can be called cultures) make it much more necessary for thugs to be aware of the high rate of ownership, which can reduce the chances of street muggings or burglaries with people at home.

brickeyee
May 24, 2011, 04:34 PM
Nothing new.

The opinion of 10000 men is of no value if none of them know
anything about the subject.
Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor from 121-180 AD

Made even worse when they think they know.

nmcollektor
May 24, 2011, 05:12 PM
My take is that for a lot of people, guns represent a cognitive dissonance, if you will.

They abhor the thought of violence or are afraid of something bad happening to them, so guns may represent that bad thought that they don't want to address in reality.

Most of the anti-gun people you meet have no issue with train law enforcement officers having guns or even owning them personal;y. What they don't want is a bully, or someone crazy (read conservative) imposing their will on them using a firearm.

I was somewhat anti-gun myself before stumbling on collecting as a hobby, and I grew up in a hunting mecca. I just didn't know enough about them and resented the people who did - as guns potentially gave them power over me.

Many guns later, I guess I'm one of "them." :)

Nushif
May 24, 2011, 08:01 PM
Most of the anti-gun people you meet have no issue with train law enforcement officers having guns or even owning them personal;y. What they don't want is a bully, or someone crazy (read conservative) imposing their will on them using a firearm.

This is honestly a pretty darned good point. How often do you have to hear "Molon labe" or "From my cold dead hands" or "Better dead than Red" or whatever (usually) threatening slogan to start thinking that maybe these armed and politically borderline fanatics might be capable of doing something pretty bad?

My solution is and was that I am equally armed, but I could see where a "non violent" person really wouldn't want us to have guns. Sometimes with pretty good reason. You should have heard some of the rhetoric after this last election.

BIGGBAY90
May 24, 2011, 09:04 PM
recently while moving i asked my sister if she could take one my guns up to my room. She had a confused look on her face. She then asked why i had a gun. I asked her why not. Her next statement was "why do you". That let me know she had no genuine idea why she felt i should not own a gun.

This got me thinking. Do you find most people who are anti-gun to just be unknowledgeable about the topic?

I'm sure this topic has come up but te conversation i had with her surprised me the most as she couldn't think of any reason why i should not be allowed to own a firearm.
yes they do but i can't find my answer i posted early--

happygeek
May 24, 2011, 11:35 PM
Guns are different. You can run away from a guy with a knife. You can't run faster than a bullet. You can't buy your first bow today and kill 20 people in a crowd with it tomorrow. You can't walk into a school with a broadsword hidden in your pants and kill a dozen students in homeroom.


Broadswords are a little big, but meat cleavers seem to work fine for that (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/13/world/la-fg-china-school-attack-20100513). Then there was the bulldozer attack in China that killed 8 (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295418). The worst mass murder on US soil not considered an act of terrorism used a can of gasoline as the murder weapon and 87 were killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire). The worst school massacre on US soil used dynamite, pyrotol, and a VBIED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster). That massacre occurred in 1927 prior to the NFA; the guy could have bought an automatic.

In 2009 5 times as many people were murdered with knives and other cutting instruments than with a rifle of any type (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html).

One of the huge issues with comparing the US to other gun ban utopias like England is that the US doesn't have uniform gun laws, not even close. As those on this site know, but many if not most of the general population seems unaware of, gun laws vary wildly depending on which state you're in. The homicide rates vary wildly as well. For some reason the gun control groups don't seem to like to discuss gun laws/homicide rates of "lax" states vs strict states. They seem to prefer to stick to talking about "gun deaths" since most of that number is made up of suicides. Then of course there's this little gem from the CDC where they attempted to show the effectiveness of a gun control scheme ... any gun control scheme (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm).

HGUNHNTR
May 25, 2011, 09:28 AM
Wow, what a heated debate has been started here. Remember, we are on the same side here. The "anti's" are the problem, not our fellows. Lets point our proverbial guns downrange. No way, heated, non personal attack oriented discussion is what makes THR great. As LibShooter said, lets not pretend that facts aren't facts. We all know that with freedom comes responsibility, and there are thse that will inevitably shirk that responsibility. Lets not pretend it won't/doesn't/can't happen and discuss the issue in a civilized manner.

Happygeek, do you have a can of gas at your nightstand at the ready in case of a home break in? I sure don't, I have a CZ Phantom because it will be a better instrument for stopping an attack than a knife or a gas can. What makes firearms fantastic defense tools can also make them very effective tools for commiting crimes...that is just fact.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 09:36 AM
Their logic is fine, though we may not like it or agree with it. By and large they are not paranoid, stupid, sheeple, cowards, fascists or communists.
Their "logic", ISN'T. Almost to a man, I've seen nothing but:

UTTER technical ignorance regarding firearms
UTTER ignorance of CURRENT law
A shocking revulsion toward cause & effect
A total ignorance of history

Overall they do a better job stating their case than we do of ours, although they have their share of charlatans.
Then you need to hang out with a better, smarter class of gun owner and 2nd Amendment activist. I know pretty much ALL of their arguments, having spent the last 30+ years demolishing them wherever I've encountered them. I don't know how old you are, but I was the second FidoNet "point" in the Cleveland area in the mid '80s. I NEVER missed a chance to trash their "logic" in POLITICS and RTKBA. Of course FidoNet and later usenet gave me an opportunity to let THEM prove they were racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and the like. Of course it wasn't really THAT hard since I mostly used their OWN words. But then you may find NO hint of bigotry in comparing CCW advocates to, "Over-educated Jewish lawyers, trying to fight prayer in schools". Who knows, maybe like them, you find no evidence of racism in a White anti-gunner calling a Black person a "house ******" for failing to support gun control.

The anti-gunners are who they are, whether you like it.
AHSA is dead, whether you like it or not.

Neverwinter
May 25, 2011, 10:21 AM
Of course FidoNet and later usenet gave me an opportunity to let THEM prove they were racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and the like. Of course it wasn't really THAT hard since I mostly used their OWN words. But then you may find NO hint of bigotry in comparing CCW advocates to, "Over-educated Jewish lawyers, trying to fight prayer in schools". Who knows, maybe like them, you find no evidence of racism in a White anti-gunner calling a Black person a "house ******" for failing to support gun control.
This particular criticism seems rather hollow when we harbor our own bigots/ racists, some of whom have posted in this thread. A prime example would be a few pages back; someone boasted about converting a person from one party to another by informing her how her bigotry puts her more in line with another party.

Were anti-gun sentiments coupled with bigotry/racism consistently, or were these particular posters which were the loudest among the discussion? How prevalent was it? Whenever I see pro-gun people express bigotry, I generally dismiss them as being outliers. I also assume that their bigotry is incidental to their pro-gun position.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 10:49 AM
This particular criticism seems rather hollow when we harbor our own bigots/ racists, some of whom have posted in this thread. A prime example would be a few pages back; someone boasted about converting a person from one party to another by informing her how her bigotry puts her more in line with another party.

Were anti-gun sentiments coupled with bigotry/racism consistently, or were these particular posters which were the loudest among the discussion? How prevalent was it? Whenever I see pro-gun people express bigotry, I generally dismiss them as being outliers. I also assume that their bigotry is incidental to their pro-gun position.
The moderators of FidoNet FIREARMS and RTKBA and usenet rec.guns regularly ejected vocal White supremacists from those echoes and that newsgroup. I know, I was co-moderator of RTKBA.

The general membership of usenet talk.politics.guns regularly SAVAGED the imbeciles from the National Alliance who trolled for recruits there.

The anti-gunners in usenet talk.politics.guns were a BLOCK, minimizing racial slurs as "politically incorrect". Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists among them were regularly given cover. One of the biggest anti-gun voices (now on the Huffington Post) was on absolutely CORDIAL terms with the neo-Nazis of the National Alliance, describing them as "polite and honest".

One group rejected racism as a group. One group alternately denied, endorsed, and excused racism as a group.

Anti-gunners are who they are and no amount of denials will change that.

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 11:28 AM
Then you need to hang out with a better, smarter class of gun owner and 2nd Amendment activist. I know pretty much ALL of their arguments, having spent the last 30+ years demolishing them wherever I've encountered them. I don't know how old you are, but I was the second FidoNet "point" in the Cleveland area in the mid '80s. I NEVER missed a chance to trash their "logic" in POLITICS and RTKBA. Of course FidoNet and later usenet gave me an opportunity to let THEM prove they were racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and the like. Of course it wasn't really THAT hard since I mostly used their OWN words. But then you may find NO hint of bigotry in comparing CCW advocates to, "Over-educated Jewish lawyers, trying to fight prayer in schools". Who knows, maybe like them, you find no evidence of racism in a White anti-gunner calling a Black person a "house ******" for failing to support gun control.

Their "logic", ISN'T. Almost to a man, I've seen nothing but:
UTTER technical ignorance regarding firearms
UTTER ignorance of CURRENT law
A shocking revulsion toward cause & effect
A total ignorance of history


Maybe you need to associate with a smater class of non-gun owners and anti gun activist. LOL :D

You do realize you are demonstrating poor logic here? You are using a red herring to envoke a strawman. If you are going to claim the logical high ground maybe you should do it without employing logical fallacies. The reality is that there is poor logic and poor reasoning on both sides of the issue.

I am not sure why you feel the need to make blanket statements about those who do not share you beliefs. You have not offered a single piece of logically valid evidence to prove your arguement. Yet at the same time you claim "logical" superiority. It seems to me you have made declaritive statements, which are opinion based, as if they were fact. You are employing circular reasoning. You know you are right and they are wrong so as a result your logic is sound and theirs is falty. Yet you have not proven or demonstrated this to be logically true. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises instead your conclusion is your premise.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S5dFdpF6xm0/Sr3ruWqi0YI/AAAAAAAAAY8/xHiKfjagBdQ/s400/circular-

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 11:54 AM
I am not sure why you feel the need to make blanket statements about those who do not share you beliefs.
Clearly theory always trumps observed reality... if you're an anti-gunner.

"What you experienced didn't really didn't happen because it makes me feel bad." is a REALLY lousy argument.

happygeek
May 25, 2011, 11:56 AM
Happygeek, do you have a can of gas at your nightstand at the ready in case of a home break in? I sure don't, I have a CZ Phantom because it will be a better instrument for stopping an attack than a knife or a gas can. What makes firearms fantastic defense tools can also make them very effective tools for commiting crimes...that is just fact.


I do have some around but since I'm not a mass murderer I don't plan on using them.

Handguns do help with armed robbery, if your victims have been disarmed by law and/or you have strenght in numbers. Being a halfway intelligent criminal seems to help more though, for example there was a guy on the History Channel who passed notes to bank tellers that said "I have a gun give me money". He got away with it for years before he was finally caught by handwriting analysis and DNA (the show never did say if he was in fact armed). On the other end of the spectrum you have The North Hollywood shootout where the criminals used several automatic long guns and wore body armor. Both died and got away with nothing.

Nushif
May 25, 2011, 11:58 AM
I love it when people on a firearm board call each other antis because one party doesn't agree with the other in how to explain other people's opinions and reasoning. Lemme dig up a quote that stuck with me here ...

It's not good enough to have for an "enemy" a misguided lady who took up the gun control cause because her life was devastated by a guy with a pistol. We have to create a mythic amoral Communist bent on dominating America.

Justin
May 25, 2011, 12:02 PM
Their "logic", ISN'T. Almost to a man, I've seen nothing but:

1. UTTER technical ignorance regarding firearms

I've done a fair amount of lurking at various sites and blogs either frequented or operated by anti-gun activists. In general, not only is there an almost uniform lack of the technical side of firearms, in a surprisingly large number of instances, people who are anti-gun are downright proud of the fact that they don't know anything about guns.

In general, they will decry those who attempt to educate them, and claim that technical understanding is not needed or even wanted when it comes to making public policy dealing with guns.

I've seen this attitude most prevalent in gun discussions on sites like Daily Kos, or on the blog written by Joan Peterson, a board member of the Brady Campaign.

2. UTTER ignorance of CURRENT law

I've also seen this as well. Most people who lean anti-gun simply assume that anyone can buy a gun at any time and for any reason. They have no understanding of the process needed to go about purchasing a legal firearm, nor the current laws that are on the books covering their usage.

On top of that, to an individual, they are nearly completely ignorant about how shooting ranges, clubs, and gun stores operate, generally assuming that such venues are free-for-alls that would make downtown Mogadishu look like candlelight vigil.

3. A shocking revulsion toward cause & effect

It's amazing how downright angry they get when you ask an anti-gun activist to detail how they would go about actually enforcing the laws they propose.

4. A total ignorance of history

This, indeed seems to play into it as well. Anti-gun activists will either ignore what's happened in the past, or hand-wave past historical experiences away with a "times are different now."

I've often seen this in relation to anti-gun advocates who push for registration of ammunition sales. When it's pointed out that ammo registration was a part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and that it had no impact whatsoever on crime, the historical record is simply ignored.

HGUNHNTR
May 25, 2011, 12:06 PM
I do have some around but since I'm not a mass murderer I don't plan on using them LOL!! Phew! I guess the same could be said for your handgun using that logic.

You didn't answer the question though, why choose a firearm over a knife or gallon of gas for home protection?

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 12:06 PM
I love it when people on a firearm board call each other antis because one party doesn't agree with the other in how to explain other people's opinions and reasoning. Lemme dig up a quote that stuck with me here ...
I love it when people spout anti-gun talking points, or defend those who do and claim to be "pro-gun".

It kind of reminds me of the week long series that NPR did on gun control in the '80s. Their "pro-gun" spokesman was a guy who only owned shotguns and admitted that if he were REALLY pressed to give THOSE up, he WOULD.

And people wonder why AHSA is deader than Charlie Sheen's last lonely brain cell...

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 12:07 PM
Clearly theory always trumps observed reality... if you're an anti-gunner.

"What you experienced didn't really didn't happen because it makes me feel bad." is a REALLY lousy argument.


Emperical data is a valid when used properly. When you use it in the proper way. It reminds me of the old Mark Twain quote.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

How am I an anti-gunner and where did I say something did not happen? You are now employing another logically fallacy. This one is called an ad hominem attack + a strawman. Instead of dealing with my statements and my arguement you attack me. You attempt to label me with something negative in order to discredit me and then misrepresent what I said in order to prove your right.

The reality is I am very pro gun. I have not said that your statements make me feel anything. I do not feel "bad" about this dicussion. As of yet I have not made an arguement. I have however attempted to illustrate the flaws in yours.

Justin
May 25, 2011, 12:08 PM
Maybe you need to associate with a smater class of non-gun owners and anti gun activist. LOL

I thought that this is what I was doing when following the social media feeds of the various anti-gun organizations and reading the blogs authored by their most ardent members and supporters.

For some examples, I'd point you to the Twitter feed of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but they recently had their account suspended by Twitter after outing the names and contact information of about a half-dozen pro-gun bloggers and then making veiled threats against them.

If there are blogs, forums, Facebook accounts, or Twitter feeds authored by thoughtful anti-gun activists, I'd certainly appreciate being provided with some links.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 12:13 PM
Emperical data is a valid when used properly. When you use it in the proper way. It reminds me of the old Mark Twain quote.
And "properly" is when it proves YOUR point?

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 12:14 PM
Justin,

Couldn't the same things be said about pro-gun websites and pro gunners.

My mother is law is pro gun. Owns guns believes in gun rights but I constantly have to correct her safety habits. I have to clean her guns because she does not know how to even field strip or properly oil them.

She does not know of or any of the details of current guns laws of the state she resides in.

She would not know what if any restrictions the Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed her and certainly does not understand its effect on crime.

She is a NRA member and votes pro gun.

Again all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 12:16 PM
And "properly" is when it proves YOUR point?

Based on what criteria?

Justin
May 25, 2011, 12:21 PM
Couldn't the same things be said about pro-gun websites and pro gunners.

There's a reason why sites like THR exist. There are plenty of people who are pro-gun, but need proper education, but that's not the point of this thread, so I don't see how bringing it up in this context really even matters.

While there may be gun owners who are unsafe, uneducated, or both, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of pro-gun people are generally thoughtful and do their best to be well-informed.

I see a distinct lack of this sort of intellectual honesty and curiosity from anti-gun advocates, and that's not due to a lack of actually trying to find them.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 12:23 PM
Justin,

Couldn't the same things be said about pro-gun websites and pro gunners.

My mother is law is pro gun. Owns guns believes in gun rights but I constantly have to correct her safety habits. I have to clean her guns because she does not know how to even field strip or properly oil them.

She does not know of or any of the details of current guns laws of the state she resides in.

She would not know what if any restrictions the Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed her and certainly does not understand its effect on crime.

She is a NRA member and votes pro gun.

Again all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.
And she's advocating restricting the rights of others, based on that ignorance?

No wait, she ISN'T.

Lots of people are utterly ignorant of the tenets of Islam. That harms nobody.

Advocating legislation depriving Muslims of their civil liberties, based on that ignorance HARMS them and everyone else.

Somebody else's ignorance doesn't harm me.
Somebody else's tangible efforts to deprive me of my rights, or active support for others who do, based on that ignorance HARMS me.

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 12:28 PM
I thought that this is what I was doing when following the social media feeds of the various anti-gun organizations and reading the blogs authored by their most ardent members and supporters.

For some examples, I'd point you to the Twitter feed of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but they recently had their account suspended by Twitter after outing the names and contact information of about a half-dozen pro-gun bloggers and then making veiled threats against them.

If there are blogs, forums, Facebook accounts, or Twitter feeds authored by thoughtful anti-gun activists, I'd certainly appreciate being provided with some links.

As this thread and others like it here sometimes demonstrate the most vocal are not the most informed, educated or the best representatives of a position.

AlexanderA
May 25, 2011, 12:29 PM
I've seen this attitude most prevalent in gun discussions on sites like Daily Kos

The commenters on Daily Kos seem to run about 50-50 pro- and anti-gun, with the trend being toward less anti-gun activism. But there's an overriding realization that gun control is a big losing issue in terms of liberal/progressive politics. The reason has to do with intensity of commitment -- anti-gun people are rarely single-issue voters, while pro-gun people often are. In most parts of the country, if a (progressive/liberal) politician takes a strong anti-gun stand, he won't gain many votes on the left (which would vote for him anyway), but he'll lose a lot more votes from gun-owning independents and, yes, liberals. This is exactly the calculation explaining why Obama has done zero on guns.

HGUNHNTR
May 25, 2011, 12:32 PM
Another reason I like this site......civilized debate...most of the time. No one is convincing anyone of anything, but the tone of arguments are in line with THR philosophy, and that is refreshing.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 12:34 PM
I thought that this is what I was doing when following the social media feeds of the various anti-gun organizations and reading the blogs authored by their most ardent members and supporters.

For some examples, I'd point you to the Twitter feed of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but they recently had their account suspended by Twitter after outing the names and contact information of about a half-dozen pro-gun bloggers and then making veiled threats against them.

If there are blogs, forums, Facebook accounts, or Twitter feeds authored by thoughtful anti-gun activists, I'd certainly appreciate being provided with some links.
As a general rule, forums dedicated to gun control advocacy do NOT permit contrary viewpoints. This is ESPECIALLY so of forums run by advocacy organizations.

Contrast this with forums like this one. Anti-gunners here (and their fellow travelers) are NEVER expelled for expressing a contrary viewpoint, but for intentionally defying the terms of service... which they usually do when people refute everything they say in detail.

But no doubt someone will chime in to deny the undeniable...

Justin
May 25, 2011, 12:37 PM
As this thread and others like it here sometimes demonstrate the most vocal are not the most informed, educated or the best representatives of a position.

If you're so concerned with the intellectual state of most pro-gun folks, perhaps you ought undertake an effort to educate them rather than condescending to them all the time.

Also, there's a world of difference between ignorance spouted by random members of an online message board and ignorance spouted by the people chosen to be the public face of various national-level anti-gun activist groups.

The commenters on Daily Kos seem to run about 50-50 pro- and anti-gun, with the trend being toward less anti-gun activism.

I've seen the pro-gun folks on DK making their points, and my hat is definitely off to them as their chosen undertaking is a tremendous challenge.

Nushif
May 25, 2011, 12:39 PM
As a general rule, forums dedicated to gun control advocacy do NOT permit contrary viewpoints.

Oooh, this triggered a thought ...

This forum isn't comparable to one of those!

The forum is specifically there at least as far as I can see in daily use to provide a discussion about guns, reloading, the finer points of guns, more guns, gun ownership and activism.
This isn't a forum dedicated to activism. It has a section, but it's not dedicated to activism.

A fairer comparison would be to find a forum, twitter feed or whatever that is actually about pro gun activism and then compare it to an anti activism media outlet.
I predict the two will be largely the same.

Nushif
May 25, 2011, 12:42 PM
Also, there's a world of difference between ignorance spouted by random members of an online message board and ignorance spouted by the people chosen to be the public face of various national-level anti-gun activist groups.

Again something that tipped off a thought ... we can't really be sure whether the Brady Campaign and stuff like that really *are* chosen to be the public face. I know a *lot* of conservatives who for instance do not chose Glen Beck, I know a lot of socialists who do not chose the current socialist party, and I know a lot of gun owners who never chose Ted Nugent.

I imagine the anti side here has just as many political rifts as we do. And it arguably has just as many extremists.

Justin
May 25, 2011, 12:53 PM
A fairer comparison would be to find a forum, twitter feed or whatever that is actually about pro gun activism and then compare it to an anti activism media outlet.
I predict the two will be largely the same.

You would be tremendously mistaken.

Of the anti-gun blogs that do exist, the vast majority of them do not allow comments at all.

Of those that do, they're more heavily regulated than any other online venue I've ever seen, certainly more so than comparable pro-gun blogs and social media venues.

Again something that tipped off a thought ... we can't really be sure whether the Brady Campaign and stuff like that really *are* chosen to be the public face. I know a *lot* of conservatives who for instance do not chose Glen Beck, I know a lot of Communists who do not chose Marx, and I know a lot of gun owners who never chose Ted Nugent.
I imagine the anti side here has just as many political rifts as we do.

If that's the case, you'd see them denouncing the Brady Campaign/VPC/CSGV most vociferously in many online venues.

Nushif
May 25, 2011, 12:55 PM
"If that's the case, you'd see them denouncing the Brady Campaign/VPC/CSGV most vociferously in many online venues."

Pretty sure they don't go on this board to see our talks about Ted Nugent.

mr.trooper
May 25, 2011, 12:56 PM
I think the "scared of guns" people and the "learned it from their parents/college" people are one in the same thing. They are both fearful out of ignorance and misinformation.

I would say the majority of the remaining antis hate guns for darn good reasons - usually because some idiot with a gun did something really stupid, and scared them. They got robbed at gunpoint, their ex threatened them with a gun, some "friend" they ignored for 6 months committed suicide, ect.

That may not be 'logical', but when a traumatic experience is combined with strong emotions it is certainly understandable.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 01:06 PM
"If that's the case, you'd see them denouncing the Brady Campaign/VPC/CSGV most vociferously in many online venues."

Pretty sure they don't go on this board to see our talks about Ted Nugent.
That didn't address the point, DID it?

I've had email conversations with anti-gunners who stated that they didn't condemn use of racial slurs against me by fellow anti-gunners in usenet posts because they wanted to maintain "solidarity" with the anti-gun "liberals" doing their David Duke impressions.

But again, if it makes anti-gunners look bad, it never really happened, RIGHT?

Nushif
May 25, 2011, 01:08 PM
But again, if it makes anti-gunners look bad, it never really happened, RIGHT?

Calm down there, buddy! We're on the same side, at least last I checked.

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 01:22 PM
If you're so concerned with the intellectual state of most pro-gun folks, perhaps you ought undertake an effort to educate them rather than condescending to them all the time.


I am sorry that you find correcting someone who claims to be taking the "logical high road" as condecending. I think it was being corrective. Kind of like when someone tells a newbie its a magazine not a clip. If people really understood what "logic" really is and how to present real logical arguements the discourse would not only be more intelligent I believe it would be more productive.

If we are going to debate within our own community or with the anti-gun community we need to employ sound logical form and sound logical reasoning. If we do not use this as the basis for finding or illustrating truth then we are not really debating a point. We are spouting opinions which amount to circular logic. Which IMHO ends up just preaching to the choir. If you were anti-gun to start you stay anti-gun if you were pro-gun to start you simply confirm your beliefs. Circular reasoning and circular logic does not get us anywhere.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S5dFdpF6xm0/Sr3ruWqi0YI/AAAAAAAAAY8/xHiKfjagBdQ/s400/circular-


I think that someone who has said that their pro-gun "logic" trumped the the anti-gun position and they are incapable of using logic and reason is ripe to be critized for their poor use of logic.

I just find it odd that so many pro-gun people paint every anti-gun person with a broad brush stroke. They treat them as if they are all the same when in fact just like the pro-gun side they are made up of individuals who think what they think for many different reasons. We do not like the stereotypes they employ to marginalize us yet we do the exact same thing. I am sorry that you do not see the hypocrisy in that.

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 01:31 PM
I've had email conversations with anti-gunners who stated that they didn't condemn use of racial slurs against me by fellow anti-gunners in usenet posts because they wanted to maintain "solidarity" with the anti-gun "liberals" doing their David Duke impressions.

But again, if it makes anti-gunners look bad, it never really happened, RIGHT?


All poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 01:33 PM
Calm down there, buddy! We're on the same side, at least last I checked.
Are we?

The AHSA types always say that.

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 01:39 PM
Are we?

The AHSA types always say that.

And this is what passes for civil discourse? Why are you so hostile? I do not have to agree with someone else's point of view in order to understand it. Honestly more insight is gained when you understand why people believe something different that you do.

I am and have been an atheist my entire life. Yet I went to Catholic HS and was a religion major in college. I spent years trying to understand a mindset I did not share. The more I learned the more I understood. It did not change my beliefs but it did help me understand why they believe.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 01:45 PM
And this is what passes for civil discourse?
I didn't call him any names, threaten him or anything else in violation of the terms of service.

I questioned his motives, as do I question yours.

Or should that be prohibited... it certainly is on most pro-gun control forums.

I've got no duty to take anyone at their word, especially when I have reason not to.

HGUNHNTR
May 25, 2011, 01:46 PM
Deep breaths dude, in through the nose and out through the mouth.

You do realize that being loud, and categorizing people only polarizes an argument is such a way that no one wants to listen to you right?

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 01:52 PM
I didn't call him any names, threaten him or anything else in violation of the terms of service.

I questioned his motives, as do I question yours.

Or should that be prohibited... it certainly is on most pro-gun control forums.

I've got no duty to take anyone at their word, especially when I have reason not to.

I am not talking about the terms of service. I am talking about taking "The High Road". I am talking about having a civil dicussion with someone who does not see completely eye to eye with you.

Why would you question his motives? Why would you question mine? You seem to feel a need to label people, put them in a box you have defined, in an attempt to marginalize them.

The irony of all ironies is that is exactly how the antis try to strip us of our gun rights. HGUNHNTR is spot on. The more you lash out the more marginalized you become except to those who agreed with you before the dicussion started.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 01:55 PM
"Don't bring that up, it makes me uncomfortable." isn't an argument.

I've been dealing with anti-gunners for 30+ years. They are what they are, and what a LOT of them is is racists, anti-Semites and homophobes. You can ignore the racist and anti-Semitic slurs and the imputation of homosexuality as a DEFECT. They're still there, ON DISPLAY if you only look.

There are bigoted people who own guns. 99% of the time, they ONLY support the right to keep and bear arms for members of groups of whom they approve.

Are they "pro-gun"?

Only if somebody who claims that the 1st Amendment applies only to White, male Christians is "pro-freedom of speech".

Strangely, anti-gunners will tell you that it's ok for them to use racial slurs because they're "liberal" and they're only being "politically incorrect".

HGUNHNTR
May 25, 2011, 01:59 PM
trangely, anti-gunners will tell you that it's ok for them to use racial slurs because they're "liberal" and they're only being "politically incorrect".


While I respect your right to your opinion, I have never heard this as an excuse for racism on either side of the RKBA argument..actually I really don't even understand the point you are trying to make.

I don't know how it is in Ohio, but sadly in Georgia if you had to categorize (which I don't) one side of the RKBA side as having a tendency towards racism, I would have to say the pro gun (conservative typically) crowd would outweigh the anti gun (typically but not always) Liberal crowd. At the very least in public perception.

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 02:02 PM
I am not talking about the terms of service.
The terms of service directly address the "High Road".

What you're saying is that NOBODY can question the motivations of any of the previous parade of AHSA types who've passed through here, even though everyone KNOWS that their motives were to deceive.

Strangely, when THEY have impugned the motives of pro-gun people, such as questioning their masculinity, sanity, etc., that's just peachy. Funny how that works, huh? Kind of like the same Japanese (and their post-war apologists) who bombed much of Shanghai, Chungking and Manila flat complaining about the bombing of Tokyo.

I'm often reminded of the Monty Python skit where the character "Gumby" rambles about how they should tax everyone standing in water... then looks down to find himself standing ankle deep in a stream. Like the anti-gunners and their AHSA defenders, all he can do is bellow, "NOOOOOOO!"

Deanimator
May 25, 2011, 02:06 PM
While I respect your right to your opinion, I have never heard this as an excuse for racism on either side of the RKBA argument..actually I really don't even understand the point you are trying to make.
That's pretty odd given how clear I've been about it.

The history of gun control in the United States is the history of violent White supremacism.

I have REPEATEDLY seen race used as a justification for limiting firearms ownership, both openly and by implication. Ever wonder why Rudy Giuliani thinks the 2nd Amendment applies differently in NYC than in Nebraska? If it DOES, then why doesn't the 13th Amendment apply differently in Mississippi than in New Hampshire?

The anti-gun apple hasn't fallen very far from the tree at all.

Nushif
May 25, 2011, 02:15 PM
What you're saying is that NOBODY can question the motivations of any of the previous parade of AHSA types who've passed through here, even though everyone KNOWS that their motives were to deceive.

Strangely, when THEY have impugned the motives of pro-gun people, such as questioning their masculinity, sanity, etc., that's just peachy. Funny how that works, huh? Kind of like the same Japanese (and their post-war apologists) who bombed much of Shanghai, Chungking and Manila flat complaining about the bombing of Tokyo.

You're doing two things here ... first you're saying my objective is to lie. You're calling me a liar. Unless claiming someone's objective is to "deceive" doesn't mean lying anymore.
Secondly what you're doing is inventing things. I have never questioned either your masculinity or femininity, your sanity, or your knowledge of latin. Alright, the latin bit was a joke, but come on.

Relax man, All I am saying is that our fabled history of logic, rationality and "civil discourse" isn't as clean as we claim it.

And I do have to be honest if you're going to pull the racism card ... in Texas, Oregon and in Delaware, as well as NH ... the larger trend here is on the pro-gun side. Not that this is any kind of excuse on either side.

edit:
By the by, I googled AHSA ... what does some random medical admin group have to do with the RKBA stuff?

Justin
May 25, 2011, 02:54 PM
Nushif, I don't think he was addressing you specifically, but speaking more toward anti-gun activists.

While I'm not going to try to divine whether or not they're attempting to lie outright, the times I've attempted to engage with them has resulted in a lot of obfuscation and shifting of goal posts. For example, many anti-gun activists, up to and including people like Paul Helmke, have claimed that the NRA and pro-rights people want "anyone to have a gun" when the record on this is quite evidently contrary to their claims, as neither the NRA nor any pro-gun activist with any amount of power has ever agitated to remove the prohibition of convicted felons or the mentally disturbed to be armed.

Whether this is just the anti-gun side engaging in hyperbole, being misinformed, or outright lying really doesn't matter to me as the fundamental outcome is that the anti-gun activists are misleading the public. I certainly wouldn't fault someone for thinking that the anti-gun activists are lying. The only other conclusions to be drawn are that they are engaging in ridiculous and overblown rhetoric or that they are fundamentally too stupid to educate themselves on the issue.

rellascout
May 25, 2011, 03:26 PM
Nushif, I don't think he was addressing you specifically, but speaking more toward anti-gun activists.


Your wrong Justin... go back a re-read the thread. He is calling fellow Hi-Road members anti-gun.

He clearly is attempting to call me an anti-gun person here. He is saying that if I do not accept his take on things based on his anecdotal then I am anti-gun. He applies the same logic to Nushif :

Clearly theory always trumps observed reality... if you're an anti-gunner.

"What you experienced didn't really didn't happen because it makes me feel bad." is a REALLY lousy argument.

Then he states this.

I questioned his motives, as do I question yours.


Coupled with this:

What you're saying is that NOBODY can question the motivations of any of the previous parade of AHSA types who've passed through here, even though everyone KNOWS that their motives were to deceive.

Strangely, when THEY have impugned the motives of pro-gun people, such as questioning their masculinity, sanity, etc., that's just peachy. Funny how that works, huh? Kind of like the same Japanese (and their post-war apologists) who bombed much of Shanghai, Chungking and Manila flat complaining about the bombing of Tokyo


If you follow the conversation he first states people who do not agree with his anecdotal evidence are anti-gun. He then questions their motives. When called out on this he states he feels he has the right to question the motives of other High road member because it does not voliate the terms of use. He then goes on to push further that he has the right to question AHSA types = people who do not agree with his ancedotial evidence which he has established are anti-gun because they are here to decieve...

I am sorry Justin but your bias is showing. Nushif was 100% spot on with his rebuttle.

Justin
May 25, 2011, 03:26 PM
edit:
By the by, I googled AHSA ... what does some random medical admin group have to do with the RKBA stuff?


AHSA is/was a purported "sportsman's" organization that claimed to be pro-gun while agitating for things like reinstating the assault weapon ban and ending private f2f gun sales.

One of their initial board members was a former Brady Campaign organizer.

Note added:

It appears that AHSA is now defunct. (http://huntersandshooters.org/) Their website is down and their Facebook page hasn't been updated since last year. In retrospect, it appears that the claims that they were nothing more than a fly-by-night operation designed to push casual gun owners and hunters to vote for Obama in the last election are clear.

This would make them the third now-defunct, purportedly "pro-gun" false flag organization that I'm aware of. The other two organizations would be the National Firearms Association*, which was active during the 1980s, and Americans for Gun Safety, which was active in the late 1990s.


*Not to be confused with the currently active Canadian pro-gun organization of the same name.

Sent from my Android smart phone using Tapatalk.

Heretic
May 25, 2011, 03:31 PM
Wow, I wish you guy had this discussion last winter. I could have save money on heat.

LibShooter
May 25, 2011, 06:42 PM
What do we mean by "they?" The OP's question was "Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" Polls show about half of Americans favor gun control. I don't believe that 150 million Americans are racist communists willing to lie to prop up a belief they know is unsupportable.

They are just ordinary people who don't want people to have guns. They didn't come to that opinion by carefully weighing the pros and cons. It's a gut call... just like my opinion on say... same sex marriage. It just "seems" right.

Are there some "activists" out there willing to tell outright lies and suffer racists and crazies in their zeal to turn America against any kind of gun ownership? Certainly. They may even be loud and hard to ignore on forums and comment pages. But "mainstream" gun opponents don't act that way. They couldn't. We're keeping a close eye on them. They will cherry pick statistics and examples to bolster their positions. They may even appeal to emotion when the cold hard facts won't do. That's spin. Our side does it, too. If you don't think so you need to take off your blinders and look around.

This is an issue that reasonable people disagree on.

THE DARK KNIGHT
May 25, 2011, 06:53 PM
One thing that REALLY gets anti-gun people and advocates laughing at pro-gunners is often the all-or-nothing kind of attitude they often take, especially when it comes to political candidates.

Now I'm not referring to our Jeffersonian crowd here, who sip fine liqeour in their personal library of leather bound books and debate the intellectual merits of enlightenment-era philosophy, but the every day gun-totin' folks.

When someone flat out tells you that they don't care about healthcare, jobs, the economy, taxes, education, foreign policy, alternative energy, and that they just care about the 3 G's - god guns gays - it often leads to the perception of that person being ignorant, selfish, reckless, and short sighted.

It's not really a good proposition that someone is willing to let the entire world fall apart around them because they need a 30 round magazine for their AR. They'll claim they need that gun to protect their home, and to which the question is posed, "what home would you need to defend if it's nothing but a gutted out husk of a home since you have no income to begin with? Do you really think someone wants your $300 TV that bad?"

I mean I have seen people who live in homes not worth $30k including everything in it, beat up junker cars and not a nickel in their pockets, that have tens of thousands of dollars worth of guns. Sure it's your money to spend however you'd like but don't expect people to not give you funny looks when you own 14 different 1911s but don't bother to go to the dentist for a cleaning once a year.

Nushif
May 25, 2011, 06:57 PM
Now I'm not referring to our Jeffersonian crowd here, who sip fine liqeour in their personal library of leather bound books and debate the intellectual merits of enlightenment-era philosophy [...]

Now *that* is awesome and funny. But kinda true. This kinda does seem to be the brain trust of the pro gun movement.

Heretic
May 25, 2011, 07:23 PM
There you go confusing liberal with leftist again. I'm an athiest, but you can be any religion you want. I'm not gay, but you can be if you want. I'm a gun owner, but you don't have to be. I guess I'm pretty liberal for a conservative, but when someone tells me I have to believe in their god, or have to have sex with a man, or can't have a gun, thats where I draw a line you don't want to cross. The second amendment is the one most contested, because it's the keystone to the destruction of the rest. It exists to defend the rest. Leftists are the enemy of all that this country stands for.
OK just so we're clear :liberal=good.
leftist=bad.

Justin
May 25, 2011, 08:42 PM
When someone flat out tells you that they don't care about healthcare, jobs, the economy, taxes, education, foreign policy, alternative energy, and that they just care about the 3 G's - god guns gays - it often leads to the perception of that person being ignorant, selfish, reckless, and short sighted.

That's kind of hilarious if you think that applies to me.

In general I've found that a person's stance regarding the personal ownership of guns is often a solid indicator of where they'll fall with regard to other issues of personal and economic liberty.

What do we mean by "they?" The OP's question was "Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" Polls show about half of Americans favor gun control. I don't believe that 150 million Americans are racist communists willing to lie to prop up a belief they know is unsupportable.

I'd be tremendously curious to know if those Americans who favor stricter gun control are actually conversant in the legal issues surrounding firearms and their ownership/use.

Additionally, if you further asked them to prove whether or not those gun control laws are actually effective in any way at reducing violent crime, they'd be at a loss to actually prove such a thing.

I'd be willing to bet that most of them have no idea. Between the anti-gun activists who make it sound like anyone can buy any sort of firearms they want, and Hollywood and TV reinforcing those notions, I'd be thoroughly unsurprised to find out that most of those people would revise their stance on gun control if they were personally affected by some of the gun laws in this country.

That's why it's our job to inform these people about the realities of gun ownership in the US.

mr.trooper
May 25, 2011, 08:59 PM
Humans construct reality by labeling things.

Labels are useful in the fact that they free up time - you don't have to THINK about every thing every time you encounter it. That is very useful in day to day life.

The down side is that most things are not that simple, and it confuses people when you don't fit the mold. That's why its so hard to have a simple conversation some times. ;)

LibShooter
May 25, 2011, 10:50 PM
That's why it's our job to inform these people about the realities of gun ownership in the US.

We should try. It will do some good, but not a whole lot.

People don't often look at the facts and make up their minds. The usually make up their minds and then look for the facts.

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 12:19 AM
When someone flat out tells you that they don't care about healthcare, jobs, the economy, taxes, education, foreign policy, alternative energy, and that they just care about the 3 G's - god guns gays - it often leads to the perception of that person being ignorant, selfish, reckless, and short sighted.
And there we have the anti-gun talking points.


I'm an agnostic.
I'm in favor of gay marriage.
I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns.

The ONLY thing anti-gunners are willing to "compromise" is how QUICKLY the general public is disarmed totally.

Nushif
May 26, 2011, 12:28 AM
And there we have the anti-gun talking points.
I'm an agnostic.
I'm in favor of gay marriage.

I am honestly stunned how you equate those points to being an anti gunner ... where are you getting this?

ArfinGreebly
May 26, 2011, 01:23 AM
How do you ask that question?

He quoted what he's answering.

You're asking the wrong guy, "where are you getting this?"

Ask the guy he's quoting, the guy who said this:
When someone flat out tells you that they don't care about healthcare, jobs, the economy, taxes, education, foreign policy, alternative energy, and that they just care about the 3 G's - god guns gays - it often leads to the perception of that person being ignorant, selfish, reckless, and short sighted.
He's the one asserting mouth-breathing characteristics of pro-gunners.

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 08:28 AM
Deanimator,

I have a few questions.

Do you believe everyone who considers themselves part of the pro-gun shooting community believes the same thing that you do? You stated:

"I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns."

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 09:37 AM
Do you believe everyone who considers themselves part of the pro-gun shooting community believes the same thing that you do? You stated:
What EXACTLY does that mean?

Does it include AHSA?

If so, does somebody who believes that the 1st Amendment ONLY protects the freedom of expression of White, male Christians "consider themselves part of the 'free speech' community"?

Should I take EITHER of them seriously?

My general philosophy is that I have no right to force Sarah Brady or Ernst Zundel to stop lying. At the same time, they have no right to force me either to believe their lies or to accord them one iota of respect. And I don't.

All men are created equal.

All ideas are NOT.

You have a broad right to speak as you see fit.

You have NO right to have what you say respected, OR to be respected for saying it.

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 09:46 AM
No meant it as a straight forward question. I will simplify it for you.

Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?

"I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns."

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 10:19 AM
Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?
"Believe the same thing" about WHAT???

Charleo0192
May 26, 2011, 10:27 AM
"Believe the same thing" about WHAT???
The same as YOU. He's asking if you believe every other pro-gun person feels the same as YOU.

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 10:41 AM
The same as YOU. He's asking if you believe every other pro-gun person feels the same as YOU.
If they're willing to "compromise" with people for whom "compromise" means "We get everything a little later, instead of all right now", I question whether they're actually "pro-gun".

Again, is somebody who thinks that the 1st Amendment gives ONLY White, male Christians the right to express themselves REALLY "pro-freedom of speech"?

AHSA called itself a "gun owners" group.
David Duke called the NAAWP a "civil rights" organization.
NAMBLA calls itself a "civil rights" organization.

Do I have some kind of duty to accept that at face value?

I may not be able to stop people from trying to con me.
I don't have to LET myself be conned.

Charleo0192
May 26, 2011, 10:56 AM
I think most of us, if not all, believe that everyone, not only white-male christians, have the right of freedom of speech.

As for the word "compromise", well, I'd like to think at its most basic meaning, means to come to an agreement where both sides come out positive to some extent. Essentially no side will completely lose as will none completely win.

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 11:10 AM
I think most of us, if not all, believe that everyone, not only white-male christians, have the right of freedom of speech.
But that doesn't address my question.

If somebody believes that, are they REALLY "pro-freedom of speech"? Yes or no?

As for the word "compromise", well, I'd like to think at its most basic meaning, means to come to an agreement where both sides come out positive to some extent. Essentially no side will completely lose as will none completely win.
Can you name ANY well known gun control group whose goals could reasonably be described in that way? What do gun owners get out of what Brady, VPC and Cease Fire want?

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 11:13 AM
Deanimator,

Why not simply answer the question?

You stated:

"I'm not willing to compromise ANYTHING on guns."

Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 11:16 AM
Does everyone who is pro-gun believe the same thing that you do?
If you're willing to "compromise" with what Brady, VPC and Cease Fire want, you're not pro-gun, any more than somebody who supports de jure racial segregation is in favor of equal protection under the law.

People can lie.
I don't have to believe them.

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 11:23 AM
If you're willing to "compromise" with what Brady, VPC and Cease Fire want, you're not pro-gun, any more than somebody who supports de jure racial segregation is in favor of equal protection under the law.

People can lie.
I don't have to believe them.


So if you are willing to compromise at all you are not pro-gun? So anyone who believes in the concept of reasonable restriction which is well documented and well established in Constitutional law is no-pro gun?

So in your mind all pro-gun people think and believe the exact same thing?

You are again attempting to use a red herring to distract from the issue at hand. You continue to try infuse racism into the dicussion. Please can we have a "logical and reasonable" disscussion?

Nushif
May 26, 2011, 11:29 AM
Alright, lemme simplify this, then, Deanimator. I will take a quote from your post now.

You said: "And there we have the anti-gun talking points."
Now, from what I am reading the next following list will be things that antis day, right? Let's look at your first item.
"I'm an agnostic."
My question to you now is how you are getting to the conclusion that agnosticism is linked to anti-ism? Next point.
"I'm in favor of gay marriage."
Same question. How are you reaching the conclusion that one's sexual uh ... allowance for others I guess? has any impact on one's gun politics?
Your third point is kind of an "of course." Being anti means not wanting to people to have guns, yes.

So, can you explain how you correlate the first two to necessarily anti talking points?

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 11:30 AM
So if you are willing to compromise at all you are not pro-gun? So anyone who believes in the concept of reasonable restriction which is well documented and well established in Constitutional law is no-pro gun?
Dick Daley said that Chicago's gun ban was a "reasonable restriction".

Name some "reasonable restrictions".

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 11:34 AM
Dick Daley said that Chicago's gun ban was a "reasonable restriction".

Name some "reasonable restrictions".

Again you are not answering the very simple questions.

So if you are willing to compromise at all you are not pro-gun?

So anyone who believes in the concept of reasonable restriction which is well documented and well established in Constitutional law is no-pro gun?

Yet another red herring:

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 11:35 AM
So, can you explain how you correlate the first two to necessarily anti talking points?
I don't need to "explain it" because I didn't do it.

I CONTRASTED my own non-gun related beliefs with the juvenile, cartoonish portrayal of gun owners to which I responded.

Gun owners were allegedly "god, guns and gays".

I'm an agnostic, support gay marriage and am opposed to ANY compromise with anti-gun forces.

I have ZERO duty to live DOWN to your stereotypes.

I guess either the person who characterized gun owners in the way described either lied, or I'm lying about my non-gun related beliefs.

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 11:45 AM
I have ZERO duty to live DOWN to your stereotypes.

Yet you seem to have no issue applying stereotypes onto others. You rightfully shrug off the labels others would apply to you but in the same breathe apply stereotyping labels to others...

I find that hyprocritical.

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 11:50 AM
Yet you seem to have no issue applying stereotypes onto others. You rightfully shrug off the labels others would apply to you but in the same breathe apply stereotyping labels to others...
I call people out for their dishonesty and calculated deception plans.

Clearly you don't like that, and that's entirely your right to do so.

It's entirely my right not to treat it with any seriousness.

I find that hyprocritical.
More like inconvenient.

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 11:53 AM
Name some "reasonable restrictions".

Classic example of reasonable restriction is: You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. This applies to the 1st Amendment not the 2nd but it is applicable.

NICS system is a valid reasonable restriction placed on the purchaser of a firearm from a FFL dealer. It is soundly grounded in Constitutional law.

I have answer your question directly now can you answer mine?

Deanimator
May 26, 2011, 12:05 PM
NICS system is a valid reasonable restriction placed on the purchaser of a firearm from a FFL dealer. It is soundly grounded in Constitutional law.
And that's the ONLY "reasonable restriction" desired by gun control advocates?

Since they ALREADY have it, what are they still ranting about?

Could it be that they want a LOT more, which you're ALSO willing to "compromise" on?


owner licensing
firearms registration
"arsenal" licenses for firearms and ammunition
"microstamping" of ammunition
one gun a month
assault weapon ban
ban on .50 (not just BMG) firearms
full capacity magazine ban
ban on concealed carry
ban on open carry
ban on concealable handguns
ban on expanding ammunition
ban on ammunition that can penetrate a soft ballistic vest

Those are all "reasonable restrictions". Just ask Sarah Brady and Josh Sugermann.

rellascout
May 26, 2011, 12:17 PM
I am done. For someone who claimed to be able to use logic to demonstrate the pro-gun position I find your ability to debate lacking. I have yet to read a post from you that did not contain a logical fallacy. You continue to make references to specific people, opinions and thoughts and then apply them to a group of individuals.

Again how many times can one say:

ALL POODLES ARE DOGS NOT ALL DOGS ARE POODLES.

The reality is that all pro-gun people do not think alike. I certainly am pro-gun. I certainly do not share your feelings on the subject. Many other pro-gun THR members have also disagreed with your take. Even if you refuse to acknowledge this it demonstrates diversity in the pro-gun community.

It is therefore logical to apply this same concept of diversity to the anti-gun crowd which is also made up of individuals and who have a diversity of opinion. You however attempt to use stereotypes to paint them with a broad stroke which simply does not apply.

Take a step back and look at what you have written in this thread using an unbiased objective mindset and you will discover you have failed to make a logical arguement for your position. You have committed the same logical fallacies time and time again. You bring in unrelated topics in order to inflame and distract from the point at hand. Your tactics which you claim are so effective that they are your greatest contribution to RBKA cause are poor in content and in form. They would never convince anyone to change their mindset or their opinion to a pro-gun stance. IMHO if anything it might drive people away.

Please read up on some basic logic and debate tactics. Learn to create arguements not sound bites. I think you will find it is much more effective than ranting and raving at other members of the pro-gun community.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do most antis have reasons for being anti?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!