Better understanding an anti (my brother in this case)

[RyanM]

The third thing I have noticed is that when it comes to these issues, he refuses to hear facts. When I point him in the direction of factual information, he says that he doesn't care..... which obviously is not true given his strong anti position on this. You can't hate something so much, and not care about it at the same time. I think it's that he, along with many other antis, subconsciously doesn't want to hear the facts because if they knew them, and continued to spout falsities, they would transition from being simply naive as to the facts, to lying.

There's the crux of the problem right there. He's uninformed and uninformable. His entire arguments consist of nothing but "I disagree because I have no clue what I'm talking about and I refuse to learn!"

Either teach him how to think for himself first (maybe try and change his mind on some other topic that he feels strongly about but not quite as much, like animal testing has very clear-cut, obvious benefits for humanity), or let it go.

 

[SuperNaut]

What I've noticed is that people are completely incapable of being logical in all areas of their lives. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, educated or uneducated, male or female, doesn't matter. They can be the most rational and logical person on one issue or in one area of their lives, yet are unable to apply those same critical thinking skills to other issues or areas.

Additionally, on THR often I see people mistaking black and white thinking for logic.

 

[chieftain]

Additionally, on THR often I see people mistaking black and white thinking for logic.

One of the most intelligent statements ever made on this board.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[obmax1212]

You know, I am an atheist, and I always thought that "liberal" (in the contemporary sense) atheists were a bit peculiar. How can you reject theism, but embrace liberalism? It requires just as much faith to believe that liberalism is correct as it does to believe in a god. In any event, this is one atheist, and there are many others, who are not liberals and own guns.

I bring this up only because I read someplace that atheists are trusted less in our society than Muslims, immigrants, and homosexuals with regards to "sharing a vision of America". I figured that this was worth stating in light of the fact that at least two people have attempted to bash atheists in this thread already. For example, only a "knowledge dump" individual would not believe in religion. That is an incredibly narrow and ridiculous thing to believe.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

You know, I am an atheist, and I always thought that "liberal" (in the contemporary sense) atheists were a bit peculiar. How can you reject theism, but embrace liberalism? It requires just as much faith to believe that liberalism is correct as it does to believe in a god. In any event, this is one atheist, and there are many others, who are not liberals and own guns.

I would argue that liberalism (and I am assuming that you believe in the Kantian principles of man is an end in himself, et cetera) as a philosophy is centered around what could be deemed as 'rational' principles (I am me, you are you, contrasted with the Nietzschean argument "I get to control you because I can") and as such cannot be directly compared to believing in a Godly figure which would be argued there is no evidence for.

Regardless, you cannot teach someone who refuses to be taught. It does not seem like your brother will be a good lawyer if he cannot discern fact from wishy-washy feelings.

 

[zminer]

Humans assess risks by emotional impact. ... The common soccermom experience is not inclusive of violence and crime. It does have basis for kids finding ways to get into what they shouldn't. It does have a basis for a stable, safe life without physical danger.

This is the key to understanding the disconnect between your brother's point of view and your own. Frankly, it is counterproductive for everyone to post on here saying, "antis have no logic, they don't understand anything," because you can be guaranteed that there are anti-gun forums out there where they say the same things about pro-gunners. Instead we should do what we can to understand where they're coming from so we can engage them in meaningful dialog (good for you for having an honest discussion with him on an issue of importance to both of you).

Is it that much of a stretch of the imagination to enter the life of a person who has never in their life had a problem which they felt they needed firearms to solve? In their view, firearms are unnecessary and because they also hear of stories where people are harmed by firearms, they see them as a dangerous non-necessity. Why would they be in favor of making such things available, much less bringing them into their homes?

Now, another poster hit on the key point here: your brother doesn't feel safe given the level of protection he expects from the police. Over the coming weeks and months, you can point out to him that many people feel the same way and that they choose to have firearms (safely) on their person in case they need protection which the police cannot offer.

At least in this situation you and he would be able to reach some kind of emotional understanding - though not agreement - rather than just talking past each other.

 

[iiibdsiil]

I didn't read everyone's replies, just going back to the original post...

I have noticed the same exact thing with anti's that you have with your brother. They don't want to hear logic and reasoning, as when you put everything in perspective, they would have to realize how retarded they are for thinking that way. I've noticed that the few kids a year that are killed from accidental firearm deaths are enough to justify banning guns for the entire nation. If it helps the kids, you know. Let's just throw out the fact that the police have no obligation to protect you, don't get there in enough time typically, and the many more times that firearms save people's lives every day.


On that one portion of your test being better then your brothers, what I've noticed is that being pro-gun, not only pro-gun, but an active participant in spreading the RKBA gospel, that you realize how people try to skew things. Being that you can make a statistic show whatever you want, and the anti's do it worse then anyone, I've learned to look at the details. I've learned that statistics mean absolutely nothing. If you are going to explain something to me, do it in relation to 0, and do it in relation to the opposite in regards to 0. I don't want to hear that 1/3 of the nation doesn't have guns. I want to know that 100 million people don't have guns, and 2 million do, then hit me with the statistic.

We had to do business feasibility plans last semester, so I played it to my advantage. We surveyed 20 people, and used percentages when we presented. "85% of respondents said they would use our product." Yeah, 85% because we polled people that we knew would be interested, and we said 85% so we didn't have to admit we only polled 20 people. It's all in the details.

The funny thing is that no one bothered to ask how many people we polled, and there was a Q&A time at the end of our hour long presentation. Including the teacher. We got drilled on fire extinguisher placement, doorway widths, and our break even point, but not on the stuff that actually matters.

The sad thing is, these people are allowed to vote. And they are going to be running the country here in a year or so...

Anyways, my point is, I think that a lot of us have noticed the crap that gets played. Because of that, we are forced to think correctly. Once you've been burned, you learn how to not get burnt again. I think that being pro-gun and active like most of us are, we are getting one of the best experiences of being burnt, and most of us know how to not get burnt again. I don't know if that necessarily would be part of why your one section was higher, or if because that one section is higher, it explains why you understand gun control doesn't work. Just something to ponder.

Oh, and wait until I get to present my business plan this semester for a firearms manufacturing company.

 

[starboard]

Most college students are naive and spoiled children. I can't bring myself to seriously consider one an 'anti' or whatever else. Let them have children and get bitchslapped by life a few times, and then we'll talk.

 

[serrano]

A "knowledge dump" brained person may have difficulty believing in a higher power, since this is conceptual thinking. They may be able to memorize the doctrine of entire religions, but it makes no sense to them. They need facts and figures presented to them to base their beliefs on. Evolution may appeal to their way of thinking, since there's lots of numbers and dates and fossil records. How chemicals could suddenly become alive, then evolve into humans, fish, birds and insects doesn't matter to them. They don't think about "how."

Logical thinkers, on the other hand, will examine the probability of everything in nature occuring by chance. There must be an exact theory... one that the logical thinker can replay in his mind, and see exactly how it works. Logical thinkers gravitate toward religion since it presents a workable theory. It answers the logical thinker's need to know "how."

You said 'No flames, please.' - so I'll just say thanks for the laugh.

 

[amprecon]

I lived an hour north of L.A. when the R.K. riots were going on, I had anti-gun neighbors, who knew I owned guns, ask if they could borrow some until things settled down.
It takes different triggers for different people for them to realize that life is reality, to include the good and the bad.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The third thing I have noticed is that when it comes to these issues, he refuses to hear facts. When I point him in the direction of factual information, he says that he doesn't care...

Whether or not he is "being logical" has a lot to do with whether or not the facts are germane to his analysis of underlying issues. For example, I know religious pacifists who argue that only G-d has the right to take a human life - that it is morally wrong to chose to take the life of another human being under any circumstances.

If someone expresses that belief, and I show them stats NRA created to back CCW laws based on declining rates of robbery in selected counties related to CCW laws, who's not thinking logically? I am. The facts are completely un-related to the argument.

Usually (but not always) when someone doesn't care about "the facts", then one of two things is true:

1. The facts I am proposing are unrelated to their analysis of the problem.
2. They understand that [bold]both[/bold] sides on any issue have an army of statisticians that can create "facts" on a whim.

Part of the logical process is identifying shared axioms.

Mike

 

[Ed Ames]

Just throwing my six cents in....

I can say (and have said) basically the same things as the brother... I don't trust police to protect me, and I never feel I am in any danger*.

I don't consider those to be anti or even proto-anti positions. Rather, I consider them to be indications of more or less normal aclimatization to the prevailing social norms and the dangers implicit in those norms.

That's something we often miss in talking about reasonable fear. There are all sorts of things we do, and take for granted, that are very dangerous. Cooking... I've personally known people -- several people -- that lost parts of their houses, had to have multiple surgeries and physical therapy, in general have seriously messed up their lives because they made a mistake while cooking. Those mistakes often involved children as well... yet we don't hear anti-kitchen campaigners trying to prevent the tragic carnage and protect America's children by banning the private ownership of unlicensed stoves. Why not? Mostly because everybody cooks and they've aclimatized to the danger to the point where it seems absurd to talk about the Deadly Menace Facing America: A Kitchen in Every House.

Likewise I've known people who were seriously injured, and others who were killed, driving cars... very few Americans think twice about hopping in the car just for fun. Very few think twice about letting their kids ride in cars. You won't hear parents freaking out, or threatening to disown their children, because Johnny bought a...*gasp* Black Sedan... the same sort of sedans Cops drive. It's normal to most of us. It isn't universally normal of course... go to a major city and you'll start to meet adults who have never driven a car, don't have a license, and are just as terrified of cars as the antis are of guns.

Airplanes? I haven't personally known anyone that has (to my knowledge) actually been injured or killed (yet) while flying. Very few people do actually because the total deaths are fairly low. There is also far less contact... most of us don't fly very often. Far less contact; far more fear.

Guns? Many people come in direct contact with guns once or twice in their lifetime. Contrast that with flying they do once every few years on average. A LOT more fear even though, again, most of us know far more people who have been injured or killed in car accidents than with firearms.

The normal stuff... the stove in your kitchen, the car you drive, the risk of random violence you face... those aren't any big deal. Not to a normal and healthy person they aren't anyway. Fear of everyday things... fear of cooking, driving a car, or going out in public... whatever... is a sign of mental health issues.

Going back to the kitchen: Switch to a society where people aren't expected to cook their own food (and there have been many...you could argue we're just trending towards that now in the US) and fear of kitchens would become quite a bit more normal and would cease to be a sign of mental health issues.

So I'd go along with the brother at least up to a point. I'm not afraid of kitchen fires but I have a fire extinguisher *and* my first aid kit has specific (and specifically acquired... not just "whatever was in the kit") burn treatment products. I'm not afraid of violent crime but I am waiting for my concealed handgun license. I don't fear these things because they are normal to my existence but I prepare for them because I recognize the dangers... including the extra danger introduced by my lack of fear. I'm far more likely to burn myself simply because I don't consider cooking dinner to be fearworthy.

One issue we (as the pro- side) face is that many people simply don't think in terms of preparedness. I had a conversation recently with someone about pocket knives. He flat didn't understand why anyone would think they needed a knife in their pocket. He'd lived for 40+ years and had never needed a knife, didn't understand why anyone else would, and that was that. Same goes for guns in many cases with the difference that, once you carry a knife for even a few weeks, you realize that there are 1000+1 uses for a pocket knife in day-to-day life whereas (hopefully) most of us won't find day-to-day uses for a handgun. The guy who didn't understand carrying pocket knives was basically anti-pocketknife. He couldn't understand why any sane person would complain about a law against carrying a knife and could see where keeping knives out of the pockets of crazy people was a good thing. Within his limited framework his position was even logical in its way. Wrong but consistent.

All of that said....

I think there is a serious flaw in the idea of someone who has significant and self-admitted problems with logic trying to be a lawyer though. I'd say he should re-evaluate his priorities there.

* Which a firearm would protect me from. I must include that because I've been in plenty of danger during car accidents, on motorcycles, learning to fly airplanes, etc. and I certainly consider many of the current political trends to be dangerous in other ways... but those threats aren't answered by guns.

 

[highorder]

Most college students are naive and spoiled children. I can't bring myself to seriously consider one an 'anti' or whatever else. Let them have children and get bitchslapped by life a few times, and then we'll talk.

sweeping generalizations are of little help here. Do you personally know most college students? And what of those that will never know harm, crime, poverty, or hardship in life? Are you saying that one's beliefs are less viable until they have experienced hardship?

come on...

 

[bloodedsky]

college students *are* naive and spoiled children! their opinions mean nothing! let's bitchslap them all! (sarcasm)

if his brother says he's an anti, then he's an anti (at this juncture in time). doesn't matter if the dude is 12 or 50. you'll find that the "naive and spoiled children" class doesn't discriminate on the basis of age.

that having been said, life *is* the great moderator of us all. the whole, unabridged truth about guns encompasses everybody's views, antis included.

 

[Foosinho]

You know, I am an atheist, and I always thought that "liberal" (in the contemporary sense) atheists were a bit peculiar. How can you reject theism, but embrace liberalism? It requires just as much faith to believe that liberalism is correct as it does to believe in a god. In any event, this is one atheist, and there are many others, who are not liberals and own guns.

Huh? I'm a liberal atheist gun owner - who scored in the 96th percentile on the cognitive reasoning portion of the GRE - who has absolutely no issue reconciling atheism, gun ownership, and liberalism. There's no faith involved in any of it.

I've learned that statistics mean absolutely nothing.

You haven't learned the correct lesson. Statistics tell you useful information about the underlying data set. It's when you cook the underlying data (like your non-random sampling) that statistics can give you incorrect impressions. Statistics are an abstraction of sorts of the raw data.

Just throwing my six cents in....

This was a tremendous post, Ed.

 

[cambeul41]

For example, I know religious pacifists who argue that only G-d has the right to take a human life - that it is morally wrong to chose to take the life of another human being under any circumstances.

I, too, hear this argument. In return, I ask gently whether that means the religious pacifist therefore cannot serve as God's instrument. So far I have not received a reply.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I, too, hear this argument. In return, I ask gently whether that means the religious pacifist therefore cannot seve as God's instrument. So far I have not received a reply.

Either you encounters with religious pacifist are apocryphal or you aren't listening.

I think even a non-pacifist can answer that question in under 10 seconds - "Every war has been justified by the claim - on both sides - that they were G-d's instrument. The claim to be G-d's instrument is not justification for killing another human being."

In general, the pacifists I have known would serve as G-d's instrument by dying, but not by killing.

I seriously hope you were able to answer your own question as fast as you could type it!

Mike

 

[cambeul41]

Either you encounters with religious pacifist are apocryphal or you aren't listening.

I listen. But I suspect the truth is that those that say this to me are not really pacifists, but are for the most part are quoting their minister and have never thought of defending what they say or countering what I say. Most of the people I get into such discussions with are in Detroit. There are a lot of churches here, but I do not know how much real piety.

I am not religious, so a true, well educated religious pacifist would probably make sukiyaki meat of me if I tried to really argue a religious point of view. I would never say I was an instrument of God. I do refer them to articles on the subject of religion and self-defense -- then drop the subject because I am not trying to convert them. I would, though, like them to understand that there is more than one thought out and perhaps moderately reasonable position on the subject.

"Every war has been justified by the claim - on both sides - that they were G-d's instrument. The claim to be G-d's instrument is not justification for killing another human being."

Every war? Oh, come now!

 

[USAFNoDAk]

I don't listen to Michael Savage very often as his style doesn't lend itself to my endearance. However, he makes one statement that I whole heartedly believe he is correct on. He says that liberalism is a mental disorder. I believe your brother is demonstrating that exact fact. Most people, who are normal and logical, if they want to form an opinion on something, will seek out information and people who are knowledgeable to feed them data, so that they might come to an "informed" opinion. Many liberals, not all, try to think with their emotions on full power. Thus, logic and facts get buried under the noise floor of these emotions. The power of the emotions cause distortion, similar to how too much base causes distortion in less expensive speakers.

If one refuses to discuss or look at facts to come to a conclusion about any topic, it shows that they are not hitting on all cylinders from a mental perspective. That doesn't mean they are evil or ill people. They just have a disorder that they are completely unaware of. It's hard to convince someone that they have a problem which they are unaware of, especially when discussing "mental disorders". I know many people who have this same affliction. I actually like most of them, but it's indeed frustrating that they won't accept nor seek help. They won't even admit that they have a problem, much as true alcoholics won't admit that they have a drinking problem, usually until it's too late.

 

[RPCVYemen]

But I suspect the truth is that those that say this to me are not really pacifists, but are for the most part are quoting their minister and have never thought of defending what they say or countering what I say.

Talk with Quakers, Brethren or Mennonites - the traditional "peace churches". I spent a good deal of time with Quakers. Many, many Quakers were Conscientious Objectors in WWII, and spent their time in CCC camps thinking about/debating pacifism.

Every war? Oh, come now!

It seems like an extreme claim, but I have a hard time refuting it. With the exception of the 20th century where one side claimed to have G-d on their side - fighting "G-dless communists", most wars seem to have been fought by people who claimed to have G-d or their gods on their side.

At any rate, I am not defending pacifism. I am a Jew, and believe that we are obligated to struggle against evil with the tools at hand - even when that includes war.

My only point in my earlier post was that if the facts being presented don't have anything to do with the anti's argument, it's pretty reasonable to ignore them.

Mike

 

[Foosinho]

He says that liberalism is a mental disorder. I believe your brother is demonstrating that exact fact.

That's not at all condescending, and will surely help bring people together on common ground.

 

[rainbowbob]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDAk
I don't listen to Michael Savage very often as his style doesn't lend itself to my endearance. However, he makes one statement that I whole heartedly believe he is correct on. He says that liberalism is a mental disorder.

What is it about Savage's style you don't like? He's too civil?

 

[serrano]

I don't listen to Michael Savage very often as his style doesn't lend itself to my endearance. However, he makes one statement that I whole heartedly believe he is correct on. He says that liberalism is a mental disorder. I believe your brother is demonstrating that exact fact. Most people, who are normal and logical, if they want to form an opinion on something, will seek out information and people who are knowledgeable to feed them data, so that they might come to an "informed" opinion.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Ninja42]

A "knowledge dump" brained person may have difficulty believing in a higher power, since this is conceptual thinking. They may be able to memorize the doctrine of entire religions, but it makes no sense to them. They need facts and figures presented to them to base their beliefs on. Evolution may appeal to their way of thinking, since there's lots of numbers and dates and fossil records. How chemicals could suddenly become alive, then evolve into humans, fish, birds and insects doesn't matter to them. They don't think about "how."

Logical thinkers, on the other hand, will examine the probability of everything in nature occuring by chance. There must be an exact theory... one that the logical thinker can replay in his mind, and see exactly how it works. Logical thinkers gravitate toward religion since it presents a workable theory. It answers the logical thinker's need to know "how."

As an atheist, an empirical thinker and a very dedicated pro gunner, I must say that I could not disagree more with you.

First of all, the names 'logical thinker' and 'knowledge dump' alone suggests a strong bias towards one over the other, which is always a bad start when one try to objectively compare two groups of individuals. I personally like to divide people into those who tend to think more empirical than dogmatic, and those who are opposite. This way of dividing people up is in my humble opinion not as biased, and at any rate it describes the individuals in either group much more accurately.

Let’s start with the empirical thinkers, which is the closest thing to your 'logical thinkers' group. People in this group likes to question any bit of information presented to them, and prefer to base their views on personal experiences and what he can logically conclude from them. Empirical thinkers will never think of any theory, statement or school of thought as being absolutely true, but will go with the one that offers the best answers in the moment, such as for example the evolutionary theory, and will abandon said theory, statement or school of thought the very moment they are proven to be false. Scientists, with the notable exceptions of physicists and mathematicians, are by definition empirical thinkers, and so are most atheists. Nearly all libertarians are empirical thinkers, and thus nearly all empirical thinkers have profound pro-gun opinions.

Dogmatic thinkers on the other hand are closest to those you describe as 'knowledge dump' people. A person in this group will at some point in his/her life establish a dogma of ideas and thoughts that he/she feel very strongly in favour of, and tends to stick to it no matter how much proof he/she finds that challenges the dogma. Dogmatic thinkers tend to disregard most evidence that does not support their chosen dogma, but still they prefer deal in absolute truths rather than mere probabilities. Dogmatic thinkers can be very different individuals, depending on the influences of the individuals during the founding of their dogmas, but dogmatic people do have some tendencies in common. First of all, dogmatic thinkers tends towards religion, as religion often offers the absolute answers that the founding of a rock solid personal dogma requires, while providing a convenient way of disregarding everything that does not fit inside the boundaries of the dogma, in the form of divine intervention.

Anti-gun people are not surprisingly almost always dogmatic, which means that reasoning is largely wasted on them. Instead, the right way of dealing with these people is to change the way they feel on the subject rather than trying to out-reason them, simply because all of the evidence that we can present to them to support our case will be disregarded as false, because if feels wrong to the anti-gunner. .cheese.´s brother is such a person, and if you dig deep enough I am sure that you will find that he have been exposed to the opinions of a charismatic anti-gunner during the founding of his personal dogma. Maybe some factor have made him more prone to accepting his mothers views as his own back when he started to get an interest in politics? Or maybe he has had an anti-gun teacher in school that he looked up to for some reason? Whatever the reason is, I’m sure that a little digging in his past will yield the reason to his stance on gun control, his unusually strong beliefs regarding his personal safety, and his apparent amazing abilities to accept book knowledge fast.

 

[Rudy Kohn]

I think all of this quibbling over the use of "liberal" as a perjorative is counter-productive. What is important here is not one's opinion on (insert non-gun social issue here). Part of the problem is that too many frame gun rights as a liberal vs. conservative issue.

I think what we can learn from .cheese.'s situation is that, though fighting unwinnable battles may be gallant and even admirable, the way to win the war of words is to fight the battles we can win--and there are a lot of them. We can't win over everybody (i.e. real authoritarians); some people just won't listen, no matter what we try, but we can maximize support.

In the time one of us can spend arguing with a "true believer," one could probably convince ten misguided or misinformed folks that guns aren't evil or scary or (insert negative gun opinion here), or write ten elected officials, or whatever. The facts are on our side, logic is on our side, but the prevailing opinion is not (yet). The solution is stuff you guys (and gals) have all heard before: make a few points, offer a little rebuttal, and leave an open offer to take somebody to the range. Next. You won't win over any "true believers" this way, but you won't waste time on them.

Heck, I'm new to gun ownership--even knowing and understanding the four rules and thinking a lot about safety issues and reading manuals online beforehand, handling a gun was a little scary at first. (pretty much my only other experience with guns had been several years earlier with a .22 double action revolver and a Beretta 92FS at a place in Vegas called "The Gun Store.") But in the end, I got over it, and I'm pretty comfortable (though not yet very accurate) with my Rodeo and my Single Six. Now I just need to shoot more and get some instruction when I can. I was never anti-gun, but I really just didn't care. What changed my mind? I guess it started when I saw the Penn&Teller episode on gun control. Then I found THR, went through GunFacts, read some John Lott... the rest is recent history. Shoot, I wrote my representative on Saturday regarding a 2nd amendment matter! From "don't care" to "wrote Rep." in twelve months!

Anyway, maybe as the tide of opinion swings our way, as I hope it will, the "true believers" will reconsider their positions, if only to stay in office. If not, I'd imagine candidates would come along who could win out by being different on this issue alone.

I dunno. Maybe I'm blinded by idealism tonight.

By the way,

I personally like to divide people into those who tend to think more empirical than dogmatic, and those who are opposite...Scientists, with the notable exceptions of physicists and mathematicians, are by definition empirical thinkers,

If you're dividing thinkers up into dogmatic and empirical, and physicists and mathematicians aren't empirical... what are they? They may be sometimes abstract, but they're very empirical... probably more so than chemistry or biology.
We'd have thrown out quantum mechanics and general relativity long ago if they didn't work so well. They are confusing and complicated and abstract, but they do a really good job of describing real things we measure, giving us incredible accuracy in regimes previously unexplorable. Physicists and mathematicians were busy quantifying their observations and looking for trends while biologists were still talking about miasmas and chemists were still talking about earth, water, air, and fire.

Sorry, pet peeve.