What is the psychology of anti-gun people?
- Thread starter iliketoshootguns
- Start date
- Status
Mr.V.
Member
I don't think so.
You maybe pegged the 10 or so anti-gunners who idolize Alex de Large but for the vast majority the reason is quite simple. They don't want to die. They also don't have guns. Everything stems from those two reasons. They don't know how to use guns. They don't know how they work. They don't know fact vs fiction.
So when many of them hear the fact that "there are ~29,000 firearm caused deaths in the US each year and most of those guns were bought in stores..." the immediate solution is to get rid of firearms. Many say to themselves, "Guns are dangerous, why does anyone else need them except to rob people and banks? There's certainly no tyranny that I can see now! People who own guns are pretty much either criminals or Timothy McVeigh branch Davidians who live on Ruby Ridge crazy people."
Sure you know to subtract the number of suicides from the "facts" And you probably also want to argue that even if you eliminated every store that legally sold firearms you could hardly expect that the number of illegal guns wouldn't skyrocket...just look at cocaine, methamphetaime, heroine...etc etc.
But again, many of them are thinking in the immediate, and from the perspective of fear and ignorance of firearms. That's the source of *most* anti-gun mentality. I REALLY don't think it's a perverse love of being raped to death.
Diamondback6
Member
I'd say, as an "Applied Psych" student, that another part of it is how people deal with all the little things out there every day that can kill you. Many hoplophobes are "ostriches"--they react by "burying head in the sand", going into full denial mode: "It can't happen to me. That doesn't happen around here. Nobody around here would do that. And if it does, the police will protect me."
We, on the other hand, draw reassurance against those evils from the knowledge that, even though the odds of any one of those things happening to any one of us are very low (depending on AO and lifestyle), just in case it DOES happen, we have a plan ready to go and the tools required to implement said plan available to us.
Just a thought, worth exactly what you paid for it...
We, on the other hand, draw reassurance against those evils from the knowledge that, even though the odds of any one of those things happening to any one of us are very low (depending on AO and lifestyle), just in case it DOES happen, we have a plan ready to go and the tools required to implement said plan available to us.
Just a thought, worth exactly what you paid for it...
That's just it, isn't it? A whole catalog of pathological character traits. They have them, but of course superior beings like us do not. Anyone who disagrees with us is, thus insane or childish and therefore need not be given the credence that people like us deserve.
Diamondback6
Member
Tellner, please note: I said "many", NOT "all". Denial is a common pattern of behavior among most people, just that different people have it in different areas. It's also the first and hardest stage of dealing with the unpleasantries of reality. Eventually, most get past it, move into the next stage ("acceptance"), and then move forward from there to get on with their lives in most areas.
Also, when I referred to us CCW/High Roaders, I was generalizing, saying it was a trend, NOT a universal condition. Question for all of us: "What if the balloon goes up and you choke?" How many of us here will play ostrich and say "it can't happen to me..."? Comparatively, how many have trained and conditioned in case of a 'choke', and have a plan in case you're caught behind the 8-ball?
I've known many people who weren't CCW, who had valid reasons for their positions and I've never thought ill of them for it--besides, it gives me a kind of "job security" when I'm around them, since I then become the designated "first responder". It could also be said to a degree that some if not many of us are "compulsively self-reliant"... Not that it's a bad thing...
Give it enough time, and you can classify almost anybody's quirks as some 'diagnosable condition'. What I look for isn't so much a label, as the patterns of behavior any given condition can lead to, and therefore what the best probability is to expect from the subject in action.
Also, when I referred to us CCW/High Roaders, I was generalizing, saying it was a trend, NOT a universal condition. Question for all of us: "What if the balloon goes up and you choke?" How many of us here will play ostrich and say "it can't happen to me..."? Comparatively, how many have trained and conditioned in case of a 'choke', and have a plan in case you're caught behind the 8-ball?
I've known many people who weren't CCW, who had valid reasons for their positions and I've never thought ill of them for it--besides, it gives me a kind of "job security" when I'm around them, since I then become the designated "first responder". It could also be said to a degree that some if not many of us are "compulsively self-reliant"... Not that it's a bad thing...
Give it enough time, and you can classify almost anybody's quirks as some 'diagnosable condition'. What I look for isn't so much a label, as the patterns of behavior any given condition can lead to, and therefore what the best probability is to expect from the subject in action.
sterling180
Member
1996: Handguns to be banned in the UK
The British Government has announced plans to outlaw almost all handguns following the shocking massacre at Dunblane in Scotland.
On 13 March Thomas Hamilton walked into the gym at Dunblane primary school and killed 16 young children and their teacher. He also injured 13 other children and three teachers. Hamilton, a former scout master, then shot himself.
Today's announcement follows publication of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the massacre which concluded Hamilton's horrific attack could not have been predicted.
But it made 23 recommendations to tighten rules on gun ownership and monitor those who work with children.
The proposal to ban all handguns - except .22-caliber target pistols - would leave Britain with some of the toughest laws on private possession of guns.
Isn't it time to conclude that, literally and metaphorically, the game is up for handguns now?
Tory MP David Mellor
Home Secretary Michael Howard told a packed House of Commons he would make sure the measures were passed as quickly as possible through parliament.
But the move has angered both those for and against private gun ownership.
The Snowdrop Campaign, set up by victims' families after Dunblane, wants to see a total ban on handguns and called the plan an "unacceptable compromise".
The opposition Labour Party welcomed the report and the government's swift reaction to it but urged ministers to bring about a complete ban.
Shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw said politicians should have acted in a similar vein nine years ago after the Hungerford massacre.
Former Tory cabinet minister David Mellor also felt the proposals did not go far enough.
He asked: "Isn't it time to conclude that, literally and metaphorically, the game is up for handguns now?"
But gun club owners warned thousands of jobs would be in jeopardy if the proposal became law.
Speaking to the Daily Mirror newspaper, Ross Armstrong, owner of Medway Shooting Club in Kent said: "People are killed by drunk drivers but no-one demands a ban on cars. Further restrictions suit no-one."
A decade on,the ban has not been successful for anyone-other than the gun-grabbers,so this only aimed to reassure the paranoid anties,that we were completely disarmed of our treasured handguns-and that we were considered selfish,if we didn't disarm,because of Dunblane.
:banghead: :banghead:
I thought the UK Tory government were on drugs when I first heard about that pointless,pathetic ban.
David Mellor is a total moron anyway,he should have kept his mouth shut about banning handguns. Go back to doing what you do best,in a luxury Chelsea appartment,with anything that would want you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British Government has announced plans to outlaw almost all handguns following the shocking massacre at Dunblane in Scotland.
On 13 March Thomas Hamilton walked into the gym at Dunblane primary school and killed 16 young children and their teacher. He also injured 13 other children and three teachers. Hamilton, a former scout master, then shot himself.
Today's announcement follows publication of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the massacre which concluded Hamilton's horrific attack could not have been predicted.
But it made 23 recommendations to tighten rules on gun ownership and monitor those who work with children.
The proposal to ban all handguns - except .22-caliber target pistols - would leave Britain with some of the toughest laws on private possession of guns.
Isn't it time to conclude that, literally and metaphorically, the game is up for handguns now?
Tory MP David Mellor
Home Secretary Michael Howard told a packed House of Commons he would make sure the measures were passed as quickly as possible through parliament.
But the move has angered both those for and against private gun ownership.
The Snowdrop Campaign, set up by victims' families after Dunblane, wants to see a total ban on handguns and called the plan an "unacceptable compromise".
The opposition Labour Party welcomed the report and the government's swift reaction to it but urged ministers to bring about a complete ban.
Shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw said politicians should have acted in a similar vein nine years ago after the Hungerford massacre.
Former Tory cabinet minister David Mellor also felt the proposals did not go far enough.
He asked: "Isn't it time to conclude that, literally and metaphorically, the game is up for handguns now?"
But gun club owners warned thousands of jobs would be in jeopardy if the proposal became law.
Speaking to the Daily Mirror newspaper, Ross Armstrong, owner of Medway Shooting Club in Kent said: "People are killed by drunk drivers but no-one demands a ban on cars. Further restrictions suit no-one."
A decade on,the ban has not been successful for anyone-other than the gun-grabbers,so this only aimed to reassure the paranoid anties,that we were completely disarmed of our treasured handguns-and that we were considered selfish,if we didn't disarm,because of Dunblane.
:banghead: :banghead: I thought the UK Tory government were on drugs when I first heard about that pointless,pathetic ban.
David Mellor is a total moron anyway,he should have kept his mouth shut about banning handguns. Go back to doing what you do best,in a luxury Chelsea appartment,with anything that would want you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if we look at it logically that pretty much IS just it. As I, and several others have stated, there isn't just ONE reason people are anti gun and we have listed several of them. I don't believe anyone referred to us as "superior" in this discussion. The fact remains, however, that we look at the subject using logic and reason whereas the great majority of the antis, exepct for the ones who want us disarmed for their own power, do not.
If there were a group of people out there who did not like cars, but instead of just not driving they were pushing for cars to be banned from everyone you don't think they would be thought a little wierd?
That see is the issue with anti's vs. us. We just want to be able to have our guns and be left alone. We don't really care if they choose to have, or use a firearm at all.....that is THEIR decision. They on the other hand, want to make OUR decision for us and say that WE can't have guns because THEY don't like them. That's pretty childish or a pathological character trait if you ask me.
Fosbery
Member
Wow,just reading that article gets me fired up all over again. Couldn't have been predicted??? Is that why Hamilton's gun club, fellow shooters and parents of the children in his scout group all expressed to the police that he was unsuitable to hold a firearms certificate, yet nothing was done? :banghead: An unacceptable compromise??? How many people in the history of the UK have been killed by .22 rimfire ammunition? Maybe one, if that, I reckon. Idiots.
Deanimator
Member
Here's an experiment you can try:
Read usenet talk.politics.guns for thirty days. Don't read everything, just whatever attracts your attention. You'll see what the anti-gunners don't dare show you on "60 Minutes" or "Good Morning America".
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,109
some equate a firearm with violence and cant see past that,even with self defense.I believe and hope for peace,wish their was no such thing as war or violent crime but I do not subscribe to the thought of "peace at all costs".
I remember hearing Bill Clinton at a public debate after Columbine were he stated "I just want this country to be a safe one".A good intension but a misleading one because there is nothing safe about being free.It seems some are willing to trade freedom for a "sense of security" which is just wrong.
ANY leader or citizen that wants this country to be safe,will uphold the Bill of Rights including the right to bear arms.
Tragic when someone is hurt or killed in a crime,but history has shown that a criminal government can be the most murderous of all,usually with intent of making everything "safe".
I remember hearing Bill Clinton at a public debate after Columbine were he stated "I just want this country to be a safe one".A good intension but a misleading one because there is nothing safe about being free.It seems some are willing to trade freedom for a "sense of security" which is just wrong.
ANY leader or citizen that wants this country to be safe,will uphold the Bill of Rights including the right to bear arms.
Tragic when someone is hurt or killed in a crime,but history has shown that a criminal government can be the most murderous of all,usually with intent of making everything "safe".
RealGun
Member
But when the issue is morality, the table turns, and the tyrant or nutjob hat is passed to the other side.
You my friend have hit the nail right on the head and brought up my main contention with most "conservatives" and Republicans. While I side with them on issues such as gun rights and foreign policy I don't agree at all with their "moral crusade".
I believe in personal choice across the board which includes abortion, sex before marriage, stem cell research, watching violent movies or playing violent video games. It always amazes me the extent of both parties claiming to be the defender of individual liberties when in reality it's only those liberties that they approve of.
Or try another experiment. Sound out your acquaintances, coworkers and family members who don't wear "Molon Labe" t-shirts or cover their Hummers screaming eagles in red, white and blue. You'll find that they are no less sane than anyone here, and a lot more tightly wound than, well, about half the general population.
Zundfolge
Member
I forgot I'd done a revision of my theory here (adding a 4th group)
- The Duped: The majority of people who say they support gun control or vote for anti-gun candidates ... these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement. They honestly believe that gun control would make us safer. There is hope to turn these people to the truth as they are just lied too and not committed to believing the lies because of other personal reasons like groups 2 & 3 (and they are by far the largest group).
- The Partisans: They are Democrats/liberals/progressives ... and their party says "guns are bad"...or more to the point "those who support gun rights are our enemy" so they support gun control and vote for anti gun candidates. These people are pretty much unreachable unless Republicans became pro gun control. Most could care less one way or the other whether guns are legal, illegal, restricted, or whatever (although most are partially duped and I'm sure there are plenty Hoplolphobes among them too).
- The Hopolophobes: just simply people with an irrational fear of guns ... they are unreachable. Therapy for their phobia is required. (this is a somewhat small group ... smaller than 1 and 2).
- The Power Seekers: These are the Schumers and Feinsteins ... these are the leaders of the movement who know guns aren't bad but know they can't implement their other diabolical plans against us as long as we're armed (this is actually a very small group ... even most anti-gun politicians are just Partisans and/or Hopolophobes, only a very select few are trying to enslave us).
Zundfolge, it is foolish to believe that all anti-gun people are wrong.
It is only a belief (with a lot of cherry-picked evidence on either side) that firearms (or no firearms) makes the community safer (or more dangerous).
One must always keep an open mind, that there are situations where the absence of firearms is safer. If that wasn't true, then you should be campaigning to bring guns into schools, courthouses, and government buildings. As with any matter, it is a tradeoff issue where usually neither side is wrong.
I believe because of the history of the US, where firearm ownership is prevalent, and since it is not possible to get rid of firearms in the hands of criminals, that there is a necessary need for everybody else to carry too. But I can't see into the future, maybe one day there will be no such need.
It is only a belief (with a lot of cherry-picked evidence on either side) that firearms (or no firearms) makes the community safer (or more dangerous).
One must always keep an open mind, that there are situations where the absence of firearms is safer. If that wasn't true, then you should be campaigning to bring guns into schools, courthouses, and government buildings. As with any matter, it is a tradeoff issue where usually neither side is wrong.
I believe because of the history of the US, where firearm ownership is prevalent, and since it is not possible to get rid of firearms in the hands of criminals, that there is a necessary need for everybody else to carry too. But I can't see into the future, maybe one day there will be no such need.
Here is where you make your mistake. Sure it's great to have debates about whether or not guns = safer society in the large equation. It may also make for interesting conversation and possibly a way to start a conversion of someone who does not like guns.
BUT the bottom line is I really don't care whether statistically or not firearms make the COMMUNITY safer or not. I do KNOW for a fact that I am much more well prepared when *I* have a firearm. Hence the part about PERSONAL choice. I don't think any pro-gun person is saying that a gun is the best tool for EVERYONE to use, some just aren't good shots and like has been pointed out some just are plain afraid of them. If you don't feel that you could personally use a firearm in a defensive situation for whatever reason then it's not a good decision for you to have one. That is YOUR decision, however.
The anti-gun people, however, DO want a one-size-fits-all approach and because THEY do not wish to employ a gun for their own use feel that no one else should be able to either. That most certainly IS wrong.
I don't follow this line of thinking at all. If I find that I am better prepared to defend myself in my home, my car, or in public with a firearm why would it be safer NOT to have one in a school, courthouse, or govt. building? Do you think that it's ok for someone to have a gun in wal-mart but once that person enters a school there is a danger of him or her becoming a mass muderer?
Deanimator
Member
1. I rule a lot of my family members out when it comes to sanity and tightness of winding. They largely live by choice in Chicago. That in itself is a sign of disordered thinking.
2. All of my friends value their lives and the lives of their relatives and friends above those of robbers, rapists and murderers. If they didn't, they wouldn't be my friends.
No what I'm saying is that if pro-guns are adamant that there is a need to carry everywhere, then why don't I see the NRA and other gun lobbyists lobby the governments to allow carry in schools, government buildings, and on airplanes?
So I'm saying there are situations where the absence of guns is accepted by pro-guns and anti-guns alike.
Deanimator
Member
When will there ever be a need for 110lb. women to fistfight with 210lb. rapists? When will there ever be a need for me to fight somebody with a butcher knife with my bare hands?
I'm answering Zundfolge's post regarding the type of people called "The Duped", who believe that gun control makes them safer.
He's saying anti-gun people believe gun control makes them safer, and that is a wrong belief. I'm just saying that we don't know whether that belief is wrong, I'm not saying anything about you or your beliefs that carrying makes you safer. :banghead:
No it has nothing to do with pro-guns agreeing with it. It has EVERYTHING to do with picking your battles. Believe me if it were possible to whittle away at places off limits to carry then we would do it. In fact this actually is happening at the state level where a lot of states are reducing restrictions on CCW permits.
He also listed several other reasons why people would be anti-gun. Nowhere did he say that the duped represented every person that is an anti.....just most of them as definately seems to be the case.
In fact his list is strikingly similar to the one I posted earlier in this thread. We both arrived at these conclusions on our own and I would be interested in you providing something that conflicts.
I think that logic and reason can dictate that as long as there are 80 million guns in the world gun control laws that take guns away from law abiding citizens will not make anyone safer. Trust me, I live in NJ which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. We also have some of the most crime ridden and dangerous cities in the nation. Go figure.
I found this article and the "solutions" that they came up with particularly hilarious.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/NEWS01/607230349
You really can't think of any reasons? I have a few:
-When humans develop powerful telekinetic abilities
-When something else becomes the best self-defense weapon (e.g. lasers)
-When magnetic/electrical forcefields/shields are available.
-When there is a method of identifying all rapists/criminals before they commit
I told you I can't see into the future, so I think it's foolish to say that the need to carry firearms will always be there.
Zundfolge
Member
But they are ... I don't care how well intentioned they are, they are just factually wrong.
Gun free zones CREATE the perfect environment for mass shootings by crazy/evil people. Thats why mass shootings happen at schools and courthouses instead of gun shows and shooting ranges.
I had to pull jury duty a few weeks ago ... I can guarantee you that had I been allowed to carry into the courthouse it wouldn't have made the environment there any less safe.
This Post-Modernist ideal that nobody is 100% wrong and nobody is 100% right and one must be "open minded above all else" is part of why western culture is in decline.
There are times when people are just flat wrong ... for example there are people that still believe the earth is flat and that there is some weird global conspiracy to trick the people into believing the world is round ... these people are wrong, and no amount of "open mindedness" is going to change that fact.
- Status