Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

[Slamfire]

Sheep can't help being afraid. It is just they way they are.

 

[JellyJar]

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]

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]

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.

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]

i don't think they understand logic.

 

[Nushif]

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]

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 anti’s, 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 don’t have to be around the public with guns.

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.

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. Don’t forget SCOTUS came within one vote of declaring them correct.

Had my say. Please don’t bother with the knife, ball bat, automobile, or whatever- else sob stories. We’re talking here about guns. They are in a class of their own, and everybody with any sense on both sides knows it.

 

[Tommygunn]

.... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [post=7328613]find my answer[/post] i posted early--

 

[happygeek]

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]

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.