What is the psychology of anti-gun people?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, Jeff, the same sort of things apply in spades to many on our side. Start with a pathological inability to believe that one can be wrong on anything and the hidden refrain of that sort "Anything I like is everything I like. Anything I hate is everything I hate." Honestly, antis tend to be less subject to that particular character flaw than pros. True Believers call this being wishy washy.

Oh, and for the previous poster...

Yes, the anti may say "That can't happen to me" while the pro says "That won't happen to me". But the realist doesn't make important decisions based on the "if it bleeds, it leads" infotainment that passes for news these days. He or she will try to figure out what the real odds and contingencies are and make plans accordingly, unswayed by the ratings-induced panic inculcated by the media.
 
Todd, I find your comment inaccurate since I know I am on the side of Objective truth.

You might feel less confident of your position, but that is ok.

I know where I stand.

Your signature line nicely sums up moral relativism and, of course, never takes into account being correct in the first place.

Blake was a second-rate artist/poet. His philosophy skills were even less regarded.
 
Foob--

Let's take guns on airplanes for example because it really nails down the funamental ideology on both sides of the issue.

Look on anti-gun websites. You'll see the idea that, "only an idiot would let people have guns on airplanes who weren't law enforcement. Tempers get going in that cramped space. Someone's bound to go on a shooting spree."

Most of the arguments center around the fact that there is this one Charles Whitman type guy who is angry and will start shooting people if he has to keep his tray-table in the upright and locked position...the thing that's so brilliantly effective about this argument is that we've all seen "that guy" before (if you haven't, just spend 2 hours in traffic, and you'll see 10-20 of them).

Their argument rests on a lot of assumptions. The first and most basic assumption of course is that by banning guns on planes you can prevent 100% of them from getting on the plane. There have been plenty of news stories documenting how well that worked.

The second, and really the most sad, assumption is that if guns were allowed on planes, no good-guy would have one. No one will be there to stop this guy. There's not going to be any heros or heroines who will do the right thing. There's no trust. Mix that with the fact that the gun culture continues to erode and less and less of a percentage of the people own guns, it's easier and easier for them to make this arguement and extend it to situations well beyond airplanes.

This is why we need more gun owners. And this is probably the most fundamental difference when you see the points argued here. Most people are saying, "if I had a gun on the airplane, it would be better. I'd do the right thing! I'd stop 'that guy'"

But as long as a majority of the people do not have guns, they will be willing to give up their right to own a gun just to prevent "that guy" from having one...after all it's a right they weren't excercizing in the first place.
 
Jeff said:
Todd, I find your comment inaccurate since I know I am on the side of Objective truth.

You might feel less confident of your position, but that is ok.

I know where I stand.

Your signature line nicely sums up moral relativism and, of course, never takes into account being correct in the first place.

Blake was a second-rate artist/poet. His philosophy skills were even less regarded.
Click to expand...

Then, Jeff, I fear that you are suffering either from hubris or from clinical delusions. "On the side of Objective truth"? If you are, then you must, unless you are the Lord G-d Almighty - and you aren't - be prepared to say "I was mistaken" on a depressingly regular basis. That's what objective reality is like. It doesn't care how inflated your opinion is of your own infallibility.

Everything worth learning from the sciences to human relations is a process of discovery, experiment and study. By definition, at least the definition of any sane man, this means that you must correct course and have the basic honesty to say "That didn't work. Let's try this" or "No matter how much I want it to be true milk comes from cows, not oysters."

It is the subjective feelings which are inarguable and not subject to reason, logic, or debate. I am willing to bet that a lot of your vaunted objectivity really does reduce to that in the end. Your psyche requires that you be right no matter what, no matter how much the evidence suggests otherwise. Mine is strong enough to admit that the universe does not revolve around me or warp itself to conform to my prejudices and wishes. It exists, objectively, and I must take it as it is even if that means abandoning pet theories from time to time.

Does my sig mean "Nothing is true. One thing is as good as another"? Only if one lacks the ability to comprehend simple English sentences. It says "the man who never alters", not "everyone but the man who always alters".

Blake a second rate poet? Eh, he was well enough regarded, and his verse like that of Whitman and Ginsburg has survived even though it is not to everyone's taste. I daresay he saw more clearly and was more honest with himself than one who believes he can not be wrong and refuses to acknowledge the objective reality he claims to represent.
 
Your psyche requires that you be right no matter what, no matter how much the evidence suggests otherwise. Mine is strong enough to admit that the universe does not revolve around me or warp itself to conform to my prejudices and wishes.
Click to expand...

Wow, who's the one with the hubris going on? :rolleyes:

Ok, Tellner, you say that people must be able to change their minds and admit they are wrong sometimes. Well what makes you think that any of us never admit we are wrong on other issues? To apply your whole "philosophy" to just this one issue is incredibly foolish and not even the correct application of "objective truth".

Did it ever occur to you that maybe we all HAVE learned about this issue through research, experience, and experimentation in order to reach the conclusion that we have? Why would we suddenly change that view with absolutely no evidence to the contrary? Why should we not feel that people who are basing thier beliefs on false evidence, outright lies, and uninformed emotions have been fooled. Why should we give those people the same respect for their opinion when they haven't done any of the research, experience, or experimentation that we have?

I will ask the same question of you that I did to Foob and never got an answer. How can gun-control make anyone safer? Only if you can provide a factually correct and logical answer to that will you have any standing to tell us we need to consider other options. Good luck with doing it though because it has never been done.
 
I think the problem lies in split between the ideal that "man is basically good," and reality.

I have no doubt that mankind for the most part is basically good, but anyone who hasn't just fallen off the turnip truck knows that ideals and reality part ways more often than not. Anyone who creates a plan based on the best case scenario is worse than a fool.
 
To deny that free individuals have a self-evident right to defend their person is to introduce folly. This is why Jeff is right.

One cannot, through observation, come to the conclusion that "milk comes from oysters."

But through observation, it becomes quite obvious that those denied, by rule of law, the right to self-defense are most emphatically not trusted by the state, and are therefore unfree.
 
"Gun control" is bigotry. Literally.

Antis = racists = anti-semites
JBT = KKK = Nazis
Gun-owners = uppity n****rs = international jewish conspiracy.

The emotional logic of "gun control" is simple. The target group (us) is evil, and deserves to be suppressed/punished/eliminated. "Cultural cleansing" is the goal.
A "good" law is one that successfully persecutes the target group. England has "good" laws; they work as they are supposed to. Firearms ownership has been reduced to virtually nothing in a century or less. And without the messy violence of lynchings, and the Holocaust. Excellent laws!

"Gun control" fails to reduce crime, because that is not the target.
Gun-ownership is the target. And success is hitting your target.
They ARE out to get us.
 
Having taken the conservative road for the better part of my adult life, I can sum gun-control, animal-rights, and many other factions that call the liberal left home up in one word: Laziness.

It takes some people a lot of effort to realize that which most of us simply hold up to the light as basic common sense. It's very very very easy to say "oh, I am against gun ownership, because it breeds violence". It's a pain in the neck to say "I may someday need to defend my family, and should learn how to do it" and then proceed to fill out the forms and jump through the hoops and spend the money.......It ain't easy being a THR type person.

You can apply the laziness-in-thinking to almost every position on the left.

Anti-war: leave them alone, they're not bothering us

Anti-hunting: leave them alone, you should be getting your meat out of those cute little plastic wrapped containers -- not from a dead animal!

You name it, laziness fits their agenda.
 
"To deny that free individuals have a self-evident right to defend their person is to introduce folly. This is why Jeff is right."

What in the world is in that pipe you're smoking, friend? Some of that Mexican rope, maybe? If you can extract from anything I've said about the desirability of changing your mind when new facts present themselves that somehow means there is no right or imperative for self protection something has gone very wrong in the way logic works in your brain. The only possible way it could be construed that way is the following:

1) I like A.
2) A is good.
3) He likes B.
4) I don't like B.
5) B is bad.
6) He likes bad things.
7) He can't like anything good.
8) Ergo, he doesn't like A.

It's a convoluted version of "I'm everything that's good. He isn't just like me. He must be bad." and brother to "You play with him. I don't like him. So I don't like you." Hubris, shirk, incomplete socialization. Choose your poison, just five cents a glass.

I maintain that that isn't the logic of adults and inquirers after the truth. It is the logic of fanatics, the pathologically narcissistic and those with only a passing connection to reality.

Now, as to the thing that sent some of you into a hissy...

Consider that putative news story.

The straw-man anti says "It can't happen to me, so I will continue in my opposition to people having guns." Consider the possibility, please, that he isn't as stupid or delusional as you make him out to be. He probably believes something more along the lines of "That was bad. But even though it's happening on TV it hasn't happened to me. It hasn't happened to anyone I know. So things aren't bad enough for me to abandon one of my principles out of fear," or any of a number of other possibilities.

Your Potemkin pro doesn't sound like most gun owners I know. He sounds like a complete sheep. "There's something bad happening on TV. I must run to the store and spend more money on guns because the TV scares me, and I'll do whatever it wants me to." Pretty lame if you ask me and an slur on the vast majority of gun owners.

Someone with the brains that the good Lord gave to a woodchuck will reject both of these insulting extremes. He will try to figure out what the real risks in his life are. He will consider the options, their costs and benefits, and discount the panicked bleating of the television set. Using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in his lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree. It might involve getting another gun. It might mean doing absolutely nothing because the real risks are too small to justify any added expense.

The one thing that is non-negotiable for a rational view of the world based in reality is respect for the facts even when they aren't comfortable.
 
Tellner said:
What in the world is in that pipe you're smoking, friend? Some of that Mexican rope, maybe?...something has gone very wrong in the way logic works in your brain.
Click to expand...
that personal attack is a bit much. If you truly have a superior point just argue the point.

Also...
Using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in his lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree.
Click to expand...

Is ironically arguing a very libertarian principle...you decide what's best for you. Very few pro-gun supporters want to FORCE guns on others. Most would be afraid of such a circumstance. But you interestingly didn't state "using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in others' lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree." Which is a far more socialist and gun-control line of reasoning

So why not do as you say and let people decide for themselves how much cost-to-benefit they feel is proper...?
 
I'm in a hurry and kind of fat fingered my first post. I'm in a hurry...

Something I need to clarify. Jon Ray's piece deals mainly with the pschology of leftists. Seeing how most of the gun grabbers (UN, Schumer, Boxer, etc.) are of a leftist slant I think the linked article relevant to your original question.
 
The straw-man anti says "It can't happen to me, so I will continue in my opposition to people having guns." Consider the possibility, please, that he isn't as stupid or delusional as you make him out to be. He probably believes something more along the lines of "That was bad. But even though it's happening on TV it hasn't happened to me. It hasn't happened to anyone I know. So things aren't bad enough for me to abandon one of my principles out of fear," or any of a number of other possibilities.

Your Potemkin pro doesn't sound like most gun owners I know. He sounds like a complete sheep. "There's something bad happening on TV. I must run to the store and spend more money on guns because the TV scares me, and I'll do whatever it wants me to." Pretty lame if you ask me and an slur on the vast majority of gun owners.

Someone with the brains that the good Lord gave to a woodchuck will reject both of these insulting extremes. He will try to figure out what the real risks in his life are. He will consider the options, their costs and benefits, and discount the panicked bleating of the television set. Using experience, facts and reason he will make whatever changes in his lifestyle are necessary to mitigate the risks to the proper degree. It might involve getting another gun. It might mean doing absolutely nothing because the real risks are too small to justify any added expense.

The one thing that is non-negotiable for a rational view of the world based in reality is respect for the facts even when they aren't comfortable.
Click to expand...

I believe what Tellner is trying to employ here is the comic Louis CK's approach to arguing with others. I'll argue with you, but about something completely different than what you're talking about.

In case you missed it Tellner, this whole discussion is about the psychology of anti-gun people. Anti-gun people are NOT people who choose not to personally have a firearm for their own protection as they don't see the need for it. On the contrary anti-gun people are those who say YOU can't have a gun for your own protection because YOU don't need it and they have made that decision for you.

I also note that you complete skipped over my question....just as Foob did. I'm so surprised. :rolleyes:
 
Unfortunately, it is the point. At every turn here it's been a clash between basic values and mindsets. On one hand there is "I am always right. I can not be wrong. Anyone who isn't slavishly like me is everything bad. Any view that isn't just like mine is wrong, insane, deluded or evil." The other is "Even people who disagree with me are no more likely to be crazy or stupid than I am. I am not G-d. I am capable of being mistaken. The only way to correct mistakes is to view the evidence and change course accordingly."

In any argument or debate you have facts and rules of inference. Honest, intelligent people can come to agreement on the first and generally agree on the second unless they have an agenda that precludes the possibility of error - dishonesty or hubris, take your pick. Everyone has deep structures to their thought, presuppositions, ways of looking at the world, whatever, that are not rational or subject to logical analysis. That's the way human brains work. The key to productive argument is finding the first, consistently applying the second and teasing out the last. That way you can find points for agreement or at least understand what the real irreconcilable differences are. That is how rational men and women do these things.

The position that anyone who might disagree with one for any reason must be insane, evil, stupid or a dupe is not the position of an intelligent adult. To compound that failing with a bald assertion that the objective universe must conform to one's expectations because one believes that it does is inexcusable.

Every field of human endeavor without exception has progressed through rejection of what doesn't work, refinement of what somewhat works and innovation to find new things that work. There is no place in any of this for wishful thinking or mindless dogmatism.
 
Unfortunately, it is the point. At every turn here it's been a clash between basic values and mindsets. On one hand there is "I am always right. I can not be wrong. Anyone who isn't slavishly like me is everything bad. Any view that isn't just like mine is wrong, insane, deluded or evil." The other is "Even people who disagree with me are no more likely to be crazy or stupid than I am. I am not G-d. I am capable of being mistaken. The only way to correct mistakes is to view the evidence and change course accordingly."

In any argument or debate you have facts and rules of inference. Honest, intelligent people can come to agreement on the first and generally agree on the second unless they have an agenda that precludes the possibility of error - dishonesty or hubris, take your pick. Everyone has deep structures to their thought, presuppositions, ways of looking at the world, whatever, that are not rational or subject to logical analysis. That's the way human brains work. The key to productive argument is finding the first, consistently applying the second and teasing out the last. That way you can find points for agreement or at least understand what the real irreconcilable differences are. That is how rational men and women do these things.

The position that anyone who might disagree with one for any reason must be insane, evil, stupid or a dupe is not the position of an intelligent adult. To compound that failing with a bald assertion that the objective universe must conform to one's expectations because one believes that it does is inexcusable.

Every field of human endeavor without exception has progressed through rejection of what doesn't work, refinement of what somewhat works and innovation to find new things that work. There is no place in any of this for wishful thinking or mindless dogmatism.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah!? Where's my jacket!? You took my jacket and I want it back!!!

*figure since you're gonna go off in left field I might as well too*
 
kicking back with an ice cold Guinness draught...

Wow, this thread keeps going and going.
I can see both viewpoints.
But ultimately, it's about what the individual values most. They are both valid viewpoints. One is idealistic and humanistic; the other is realistic and pragmatic.
Unfortunately, there are elements in both camps that hold the almost comical stereotypical view of the other. The radical leftist commie spittle-spewing anti-gun effete hippie; versus the tin-foil hat wearing paranoid gun-nut uncouth rube right-winger.

I can appreciate the anti-gun point of view. "We're just trying to make it a safer world for everybody", yeah well, it's a dangerous world and will always be a dangerous world. I'd rather be prepared than put my faith in an overtaxed system. Hurricane Katrina was a painful reminder.
"What about children playing with guns?!", Back in my day kids didn't play with guns because THEY KNEW BETTER. Only idiots did that. The best thing to do in my opinion is to demystify firearms and instill a sense of respect for them. If that is violated the consequences would be severe. My parents and my uncle didn't spare the belt with me and my cousins when we did stupid stuff and I wouldn't be any different with my kids. Most of the time it didn't even have to come to the leather, he'd just give that piercing look like he was about to tear your head off.

The discipline of firearms is in perfect sync with my values and interests. And a certain place will freeze over before I give them up. And no hypothetical argument is going to disuade me on it. Ever.
 
Depends.

Some I've met are paranoid of all weapons.

Other have what they consider to be well reasoned arguments against gun ownership based upon the real potential dangers of firearms, and their power.

Yet others (I believe those in Congress and Senate, i.e. in power) often have a fear of guns from the perspective of believing like everything else, they need to be controlled by the state.

For them it is a Hegelian dialectic solution. They aren't so much against guns as they are against you and me owning guns. For them, it's access control.
 
Let's try this from the simplest of terms, Todd.

Gun control is Objectively wrong, and those who support such action are either stupid, stubborn, emotionally dysfunctional, or selfish.

If I wish to own a handgun, for either self-defense or target shooting-- or whatever, then that is my inherent right. Being a law-abiding citizen, I have every personal right to own that mechanism. I have not infringed on anyone else's rights by owning and operating the handgun.

However, if someone wants to restrict my natural right to own that handgun, wants to infringe upon my personal right, then he or she is acting Objectively immoral. I have done nothing wrong, I have broken no natural laws, and I have not violated anyone else's rights. However, those things are happening to me.

I own my body. I OWN MY BODY, and no one else does. Why should anyone else determine what is right for me, and what I should or should not do, in matters of my own choices for self-preservation or indulgence in hobbies?

In your world, nothing is wrong or evil. It's like another member said, it's the type of approach Louis CK joked about to his 2 yr old daughter: "Because nothing can't be isn't......everything can't be is!...if it was, we would have all sorts of strange stuff, like giant ants with top hats dancing around"

Your line of reasoning, in an absolute form, is how murderous tyrants have justified the horrific deeds they have committed against their fellow man for thousands of years.
 
Gun Control is one facet of a much larger social engineering movement, but the common thread is control.

Gun-grabbers believe that they know what's best for everybody, regardless of facts, societal convention, or common sense. The worst of them know what they're doing is wrong or pointless but pursue the matter for political gain or personal fulfillment.

I've known several gun-hating lefties throughout my life, including my mom. All of them have a deep-seated need to make the world a better place, at the point of a sword if necessary.
 
Gun control is not about guns - it's about CONTROL.

That statement hits the nail on the head.

The politicians who are antigun bigots want to rule over a flock of neutered, defenseless sheep who have no means to resist their politicial agenda.

The sheeple who mindlessly follow these politicians do not want others who do not think like them to have power of any kind - and owning guns represents power.

As Chairman Mao once said, "Political power springs from the barrel of a gun."

It's all about control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
The Anti-Gun Male
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
mbt2001
M
F
  • Locked
The Anti Gun Male
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
XLMiguel
X
B
  • Locked
The Anti-Gun Male
Replies
1
Views
630
Kamicosmos
K
N
  • Locked
The Anti-Gun Male
Replies
9
Views
1K
El Tejon
E
J
  • Locked
Good article debunking anti-gun propaganda
Replies
8
Views
1K
316SS
3
Back
Top