Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

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:



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.

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?

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

hso said:

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.

Click to expand...

Both of those examples are likely instances of the psychological phenomenon termed projection.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Amen sir!

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.

+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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

:banghead:

One common thread that runs through quite a few of the above categories is the Internationalist. 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.

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.

FEAR

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The three most common reason I see are:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Cryogaijin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Hey guys, I don't think liberal is the word you're looking for. I think the word is "leftist".

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.

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