What is the psychology of anti-gun people?
- Thread starter iliketoshootguns
- Start date
- Status
Guns are prohibited at schools/courthouses BECAUSE mass shootings happen there.
Mass shootings don't happen there because guns are prohibited there.
I don't think a shooter says, hmm I want to cause mayhem, where should I do it, oh I'll go to a gun prohibited zone.
Think you got the cause and effect part reversed.
So let me see if I can get this straight. You agree that gun control will not make anyone safer. But you say that if someone DOES believe that gun control WILL make them safer than they are not duped.
Are you kidding me? :banghead:
I never suggested that, I suggested there both pro and anti gun people agree that there are some places where guns should be prohibited.
I draw that conclusion from the fact that I don't see people protesting their right to carry arms in those places (e.g. schools, government buildings, airplanes), and I don't see the NRA lobbying congress to allow carry in those places.
I never agreed on anything related to gun control (or disagreed).
A person may believe in X, because of Y, not because he was duped. The original poster is implying that a person who believes in gun control was duped into believing so, not because the person found factual evidence that led him to that conclusion. And that is what I am disagreeing with. (And that is the ONLY thing I am disagreeing with right now)
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
foob said, "I'm just saying that calling people who "believe that gun control is safer" are people who have been "duped", is wrong, or at the very least, a naive view of this world."
Seems to me that people who are accepting of wrongful information are dupes. That's the thrust of the dictionary meaning of "dupe". We know from numerous discussions over the last forty years that many people are in such manner accepting of gun control arguments. For instance, right now the thread is running about the Queens DA and the "cop killer" pistol that the reporter accepted as truth; that reporter was duped.
From research such as that of Wright, Rossi & Daly*, we know that gun control laws don't affect violent-crime rates wherein firearms are involved. So: If gun control laws don't affect the rate of violent crime, how, then CAN such laws make us safer? How? I've been asking this question since I first got involved in fighting the passage of GCA '68. I have yet to receive a rational answer.
Sorry, foob; based on my own forty years in this scrap, your arguments do not have merit.
Art
* "Under The Gun", University of Florida Press; 1985
Seems to me that people who are accepting of wrongful information are dupes. That's the thrust of the dictionary meaning of "dupe". We know from numerous discussions over the last forty years that many people are in such manner accepting of gun control arguments. For instance, right now the thread is running about the Queens DA and the "cop killer" pistol that the reporter accepted as truth; that reporter was duped.
From research such as that of Wright, Rossi & Daly*, we know that gun control laws don't affect violent-crime rates wherein firearms are involved. So: If gun control laws don't affect the rate of violent crime, how, then CAN such laws make us safer? How? I've been asking this question since I first got involved in fighting the passage of GCA '68. I have yet to receive a rational answer.
Sorry, foob; based on my own forty years in this scrap, your arguments do not have merit.
Art
* "Under The Gun", University of Florida Press; 1985
When a person believes X because of incorrect "factual evidence" or straight out lies then yes that person is duped. The fact is there is NO evidence that proves conclusively that gun control will make you safer. Just look at the places with the strictest gun control...they are all some of the unsafest places you can be.
You continue to try to apply the "open mind" theory to a general aspect of gun control to which it cannot be applied. That is where the people are wrong.
For an individual's PERSONAL decision on whether or not having a gun will make them safer an open mind IS neccessary and the decision CAN be different for everyone. But to apply YOUR decision to everyone else is WRONG.
If you read the article that I posted the link to on the previous page you will see what Camden, NJ is like. A city in a state with very strict gun control. Apparently that didn't work so now they're moving on to trying to control other things. This is the part that really made me laugh....
When chicken takeout's are outlawed.....only outlaws will have chicken takeout. :banghead:
When chicken takeout's are outlawed.....only outlaws will have chicken takeout. :banghead:
Ok I'll just rephrase it one more time, and I'll let it go.
I'm not expressing my personal views on whether gun control is right or wrong, or makes the community safer or more dangerous. Therefore I cannot be wrong or right because I have not even expressed my view on gun control.
Lets use an example to show what I'm saying.
The topic is the existence of god.
Person X believes in the existence of god, because of reason A.
Person Y does not believe in the existence of god, because of reason B.
Person X says that person Y has been duped because he was told reason C by person Z. That is obviously wrong.
Do you have evidence the earth is not flat? Have you conducted experiments to determine if the earth is flat or spherical? If you did perform experiments, how do you know your measuring equipment was functioning? How do you know the earth is not shaped like an egg? Most of our beliefs are based on determinations by others (e.g. scientists), so to have a 100% belief, instead of a 99.9% belief that the earth is not flat, is, to me, foolish. My beliefs are tampered by humility and the understanding that I do not know everything, and I damn sure don't know anything with certainty. Anyway, considering the topic of gun control, which is a lot harder to determine than whether the earth is flat, to have a 100% belief in it is mind-blowing.
I could be wrong, when I say that pro/anti gun people agree that there are some places (e.g. schools, government buildings, airplanes) that should be gun-free. I only drew this conclusion because I didn't observe any lobbying or protesting against carrying in these places. I admit I could be wrong.
But the fact is there is NO evidence that proves conclusively that gun control will not make you safer. Just look at the places with the strictest gun control...they are all some of the safest places you can be (e.g. Singapore).
See, I can make the same argument in reverse, and you can't poke holes in it. That is because everybody can cherry-pick their evidence. Just like somebody saying that they saw somebody shoot a 9mm and the BG kept charging and needed 15 shots, and he saw somebody else use a .45 and the BG dropped in 1 shot. Then he states with certainty that .45 is better than 9mm.
I'm not expressing my personal views on whether gun control is right or wrong, or makes the community safer or more dangerous. Therefore I cannot be wrong or right because I have not even expressed my view on gun control.
Lets use an example to show what I'm saying.
The topic is the existence of god.
Person X believes in the existence of god, because of reason A.
Person Y does not believe in the existence of god, because of reason B.
Person X says that person Y has been duped because he was told reason C by person Z. That is obviously wrong.
Do you have evidence the earth is not flat? Have you conducted experiments to determine if the earth is flat or spherical? If you did perform experiments, how do you know your measuring equipment was functioning? How do you know the earth is not shaped like an egg? Most of our beliefs are based on determinations by others (e.g. scientists), so to have a 100% belief, instead of a 99.9% belief that the earth is not flat, is, to me, foolish. My beliefs are tampered by humility and the understanding that I do not know everything, and I damn sure don't know anything with certainty. Anyway, considering the topic of gun control, which is a lot harder to determine than whether the earth is flat, to have a 100% belief in it is mind-blowing.
I could be wrong, when I say that pro/anti gun people agree that there are some places (e.g. schools, government buildings, airplanes) that should be gun-free. I only drew this conclusion because I didn't observe any lobbying or protesting against carrying in these places. I admit I could be wrong.
But the fact is there is NO evidence that proves conclusively that gun control will not make you safer. Just look at the places with the strictest gun control...they are all some of the safest places you can be (e.g. Singapore).
See, I can make the same argument in reverse, and you can't poke holes in it. That is because everybody can cherry-pick their evidence. Just like somebody saying that they saw somebody shoot a 9mm and the BG kept charging and needed 15 shots, and he saw somebody else use a .45 and the BG dropped in 1 shot. Then he states with certainty that .45 is better than 9mm.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Down here in Georgia we have restaurants that are open 24/7. And people carry in them. I don't think I've ever read of some thug shooting a patron.
foob, it is possible for a well intentioned person to dupe himself with fallacious logic.
Someone who believes in something that research shows to be fallacious is not guilty of duping themselves? In fact, your apparent line of reasoning is an example.
You asserted that the carrying of firearms in schools and courthouses is forbidden for mass shooting happen there. Do you have proof of that statement?
I do not have proof of this statement: I would be surprised if the prohibition of weapons in courts does not predate the development of man portable firearms and firearm prohibition-at least in courts-is simply an outgrowth of very old law.
The reason I'm not protesting the prohibition of firearms in schools, courthouses, and airplanes has nothing to do with my supposed approval of these measures. There is only some many hours in the day and a finite amount of energy in any person. I CHOOSE to fight battles where I believe I have a chance of winning. As far as airlines are concerned, I do protest. With my wallet. I was last on a passenger jet in 1974. The Army paid for my ticket. As long as the asinine laws are in place about firearms on planes, I will continue to protest the matter financially.
foob, it is possible for a well intentioned person to dupe himself with fallacious logic.
Someone who believes in something that research shows to be fallacious is not guilty of duping themselves? In fact, your apparent line of reasoning is an example.
You asserted that the carrying of firearms in schools and courthouses is forbidden for mass shooting happen there. Do you have proof of that statement?
I do not have proof of this statement: I would be surprised if the prohibition of weapons in courts does not predate the development of man portable firearms and firearm prohibition-at least in courts-is simply an outgrowth of very old law.
The reason I'm not protesting the prohibition of firearms in schools, courthouses, and airplanes has nothing to do with my supposed approval of these measures. There is only some many hours in the day and a finite amount of energy in any person. I CHOOSE to fight battles where I believe I have a chance of winning. As far as airlines are concerned, I do protest. With my wallet. I was last on a passenger jet in 1974. The Army paid for my ticket. As long as the asinine laws are in place about firearms on planes, I will continue to protest the matter financially.
I'll address this one first. I have not done "experiments" per se to determine if the earth is flat. However, I have viewed objects sink out of view over the horizon while on the ocean. As a semi-educated individual this would prove to me that the earth is not a flat surface and has a curvature to it. I've also seen NUMEROUS pictures and videos of the planet earth from space that show it to be round. To think the earth could possibly be flat would mean that we have ALL been duped by an insanely large conspiracy that just wouldn't make any sense.
This is a poor analogy that you have chosen to use for the simple fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to prove that something does NOT exist.
If we look at gun control, however, it is an accepted fact that there are over 200 million guns in the country. It is also accepted that there is no way to simply round them all up and take them out of circulation. Since gun laws already forbid criminals from committing crimes and convicted felons from owning guns yet both still occur it is accepted that laws will not stop crime. From all that it would stand to reason that more gun control will not stop criminals from committing crimes with guns and therefore will not make you safer.
Again your logic is flawed here. My statement is easily verified that there are very many areas with strict gun control with high crime rates that are dangerous. This shows that the gun control did not effect the safety of those people.
In your example of pointing out certain areas with strict gun control that are not dangerous does not prove the reason for this was gun control. The fact that there are many places with strict gun control and are very dangerous precludes this.
All this does is prove that gun control does not make a community less or more safe thus proving my original point.
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,109
jeez I feel dizzy after reading the last few posts,or maybe its just the cuban coffee Ive been drinking...
criminals will never care whether they are allowed to carry in a school or courtroom or where ever cause they are criminals!
Here in Florida the anti's tried to "dupe" people by saying concealed carry would mean bloodbaths in the street,never happened,no wild wild west here.
Ah then there was the assault ban,hey its just 19 specific rifles,surely you can deal with that besides what do you need those for anyway?People are dying left and right in the streets because of those 19 assault guns...
Well the ban turned out to be more then just 19,and Sarah Brady then admitted that the percentage of crime commited with them was actually low,but hey.
gun control doesnt make people safer,they are kidding themselves
criminals will never care whether they are allowed to carry in a school or courtroom or where ever cause they are criminals!
Here in Florida the anti's tried to "dupe" people by saying concealed carry would mean bloodbaths in the street,never happened,no wild wild west here.
Ah then there was the assault ban,hey its just 19 specific rifles,surely you can deal with that besides what do you need those for anyway?People are dying left and right in the streets because of those 19 assault guns...
Well the ban turned out to be more then just 19,and Sarah Brady then admitted that the percentage of crime commited with them was actually low,but hey.
gun control doesnt make people safer,they are kidding themselves
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
foob, your line of argument is generally called "sophistry", and there's not a particularly positive view of the practitioners thereof.
On the Internet, the style is often referred to as trollish behavior. "Wilful obfuscation" can also apply.
Art
On the Internet, the style is often referred to as trollish behavior. "Wilful obfuscation" can also apply.
Art
Wow, would never believe I would be accused of being arrogant (if that was directed at me) and being a troll. Reread all my posts and have an open mind. That's the only thing left to say.
Yes but that's not what was stated by him, he specifically states "these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement."
If you can see any views I have expressed that show arrogance or condescention towards others, or believe that my defense of false accusations and misinterpretations of what I have written is "trolling", then please ban me. Else apologise for your mistake.
Yes but that's not what was stated by him, he specifically states "these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement."
If you can see any views I have expressed that show arrogance or condescention towards others, or believe that my defense of false accusations and misinterpretations of what I have written is "trolling", then please ban me. Else apologise for your mistake.
Deanimator
Member
And pretty flamboyant about it too.
Any time somebody tells you that AK47s have *500* round magazines, and that his grandfather carried a semi-auto *8ga.* shotgun in WWI, that's clearly the flat earth territory.
Some of it's just ignorance. The greatest portion of it is LIES, STUPID lies.
Deanimator
Member
You're wrong. They happen because they're a SAFE PLACE to commit them. How come there are more mass shootings at schools where guns are forbidden, than at gunshows where guns are ubiquitous? Why are there no mass shootings at the National Matches at Camp Perry?
Deanimator
Member
You don't even seem to be able to see into the present...
Getting back to the whole psychology thing, I'd like to throw in my two cents.
I think part of it has to do with an inability (or an unwillingness) to look at evidence on both sides. All too often we hear anti-gunners say, "if it saves even one life...". What they do is point out the tragic times that firearms are used while ignoring all the positive times they are used as well as the times when their possession prevents a bad situation from getting off the ground.
We see a similar sort of thing when people try to determine how safe it is to fly versus drive. As many of us know, it's safer to be in an airplane than in a car, but people are much more worried about flying than driving. Why? Because it's easier to remember examples of airplane disasters than car disasters. Terrorism is another example. People are terrified of terrorism despite the fact that it's one of the rarest causes of death. With guns, it's easy to think of times when guns have been used for bad ends. When guns are used for good ends, however, it rarely makes the news (not just because the media have an agenda, either...it's because it's not exciting). This is especially true when considering the fact that the main good that guns do is keep governments from killing their citizens. Despite its importance, that's an incredibly nebulous concept.
I've also noticed an interesting dichotomy among the far left. The Marxists I know tend to be pretty anti-gun (how they expect to overthrow the government without weapons is beyond me
). Anarchists, on the other hand, tend to be quite open to firearms training. Not sure why that is. Maybe because of the anarchist ideal of equality.
Someone at the begining mentioned something about the left being motivated by masochism. That sounds totally absurd, but if you have any evidence, I'd be happy to look at it.
Finally, I just wanted to get in a word about the Sigmund Freud quote I've noticed in a few signatures. Although I get a smile out of it each time I see it, I must point out that Freud shouldn't be taken seriously. His theories weren't backed up with any evidence, and 80 years of research hasn't yielded any support for his assertions.
Durruti
(recent lurker...first time poster)
I think part of it has to do with an inability (or an unwillingness) to look at evidence on both sides. All too often we hear anti-gunners say, "if it saves even one life...". What they do is point out the tragic times that firearms are used while ignoring all the positive times they are used as well as the times when their possession prevents a bad situation from getting off the ground.
We see a similar sort of thing when people try to determine how safe it is to fly versus drive. As many of us know, it's safer to be in an airplane than in a car, but people are much more worried about flying than driving. Why? Because it's easier to remember examples of airplane disasters than car disasters. Terrorism is another example. People are terrified of terrorism despite the fact that it's one of the rarest causes of death. With guns, it's easy to think of times when guns have been used for bad ends. When guns are used for good ends, however, it rarely makes the news (not just because the media have an agenda, either...it's because it's not exciting). This is especially true when considering the fact that the main good that guns do is keep governments from killing their citizens. Despite its importance, that's an incredibly nebulous concept.
I've also noticed an interesting dichotomy among the far left. The Marxists I know tend to be pretty anti-gun (how they expect to overthrow the government without weapons is beyond me
). Anarchists, on the other hand, tend to be quite open to firearms training. Not sure why that is. Maybe because of the anarchist ideal of equality.Someone at the begining mentioned something about the left being motivated by masochism. That sounds totally absurd, but if you have any evidence, I'd be happy to look at it.
Finally, I just wanted to get in a word about the Sigmund Freud quote I've noticed in a few signatures. Although I get a smile out of it each time I see it, I must point out that Freud shouldn't be taken seriously. His theories weren't backed up with any evidence, and 80 years of research hasn't yielded any support for his assertions.
Durruti
(recent lurker...first time poster)
Fosbery
Member
Well now you know one who isn't
- Status