What is the psychology of anti-gun people?

[bruce282]

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?

Not if your're female and W get's another one or two friends on the Supreme Court.


Bruce

 

[Deanimator]

Not if your're female and W get's another one or two friends on the Supreme Court.

Of course Hillary thinks that so long as you can get an abortion afterwards, you don't need to be able to PREVENT yourself from being raped...

I don't want to ban abortion OR guns, so I'm an independent.

 

[Justin]

Justin, I may be reading your post wrong, but it seems that you think I'm taking a position that I am not.

I was being facetious.

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.

And then later he posts:

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.

Kinda funny that you sling insults and then get all multisyllabically moralistic. Especially when you completely and utterly misconstrue what they've posted.

Nowhere did I ever claim you were "evil" or "bad" or even ugly.

But you did seem to think that my post wherein I stated a basic, and what should be a self-evident truth to any rational being, was some sort of indictment of your posts so far in this this thread.

Somebody here's a tad bit tetchy, and it ain't the guy who's been accused of smoking Mexican brick weed.

 

[SuperNaut]

I was being facetious.

Ah, gotcha. Sometimes that's hard to discern on teh intarwebs.

 

[Justin]

Yeah, shoulda used a smilie.

 

[Don Gwinn]

This thread, in my humble opinion, was doomed to hilarity from the start.

We're going to assess the psychology of, not just strangers, but hypothetical strangers. The only hard and fast rule about these hypothetical imaginary strangers is that they disagree with us on the one principle we hold above all others. . . . but we will of course be scrupulously fair and there's no way any kind of bias or prejudice will creep in. No, we're going to learn lots from this bit of science, you wait and see.

Anyway, I guess my point is that there's not much signal happening here. Now that we've devolved into "Take that back, you dope-addled hippy dummy" along with debates about abortion, I think we're done.