Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why are antis?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Zundfolge, Jul 20, 2003.

?

Why are antis anti?

  1. The Duped: they believe the lies told by the anti gun leadership (and honestly think gun control wou

    88 vote(s)
    49.2%
  2. The Bigots: They generaly hate rural white males and see guns as a "Redneck" artifact.

    11 vote(s)
    6.1%
  3. The Partisans: They are partisan liberals/Democrats and are antigun because thats the party line.

    3 vote(s)
    1.7%
  4. The Hopolophobes: They are just irrationaly afraid of guns.

    58 vote(s)
    32.4%
  5. Other: please explain.

    19 vote(s)
    10.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    So why do you guys think your rank and file, street level antis are anti?

    I'm not talking about Sarah Brady or other leaders in the gun control movement, I'm talking about the person on the street who may not even get involved in gun control causes, but still believe gun control is a good idea.
     
  2. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    All the above, none of the above.

    Folks are individuals and have individual reasons for believing and doing the things they do.

    Every one of the reasons given would work for some members of the group. None of the reasons would work for all (or even most) of them.

    pax

    You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. -- James Thurber
     
  3. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Pax, thats a valid point, however I do believe that one of those choices is more indicative of the main reason the majority of antis are anti ... too bad the forum software doesn't allow "ranking" polls because I do believe that most of those apply in one degree or another to the majority of antis.
     
  4. MessedUpMike

    MessedUpMike Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    179
    Location:
    Metro DC
    I'll vote to of the main reasons working in tandem. Firstly the number of people who have grown up with no exposure to firearms gets larger all of the time. all they know about fireamrs is what they see in the movies and from TV. This leads to an irrational fear of guns by not knowing what they are about. Because of this they are easily duped by the other anti's who are simply reinforcing the (wrong) information the people have already picked up.
    A third group that I can't really catagorize here are people like my monster-in-law who hates guns because the liberals tell her to an she follows the party line with no thought what so ever on her own. Mind you this is the same woman who swore to me that the Kent State shooting was a government supported murder, and lost sleep worrying that the war in Chechnyia was "going to go nuclear":barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

    It's interesting how the people who yell the loudest about being able to think for themselves are the ones who do it the least.
     
  5. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,528
    I voted other. Why? Because it's a little bit of each that make the cumulative total.
     
  6. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    Same answer as 4v50 Gary had, but thy can also be 100% of one or 50%/50% of two etc etc...
     
  7. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    I have to agree that there is no one reason why they are anti. Another reason is that they are never taught that a gun is a tool. A person can be killed by a hammer or a chainsaw or a car just as easily as they can be killed with a gun.

    What I want to know is how far the outlawing will go before someone says "STOP!". I think that it will be somewhere in between banning rocks and banning your hands, if it were up to some of the liberals I have seen. (Anyone caught having hands without a license will be imprisoned and be freed of the burden of having illegal apendages...)
     
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I believe people who are active rather than merely passive or indifferent anti-Second Amendment bigots have deep psychological problems. I've known a few of them. They've all had very controlling personalities. They've all been pretenders. They've all been snoops. They've all been dishonest in jobs and personal relationships. The few I've known very well have been ruled by fear, and it's been apparent they're most afraid of the deep dark ugly secrets and demons within themselves. They seem to try to control others because they fear the things within themselves that are out of control. They seem to project masks or artificial personalities as a way to hide their actual selves, of which they're ashamed. They're very rigid people who perceive everything in strictly black and white terms. Most have temper tantrums if they don't get their way.

    Serious anti-Second Amendment bigots, in my experience, are social and psychological cripples.
     
  9. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    I voted "other". These people are simply stupid, or more precisely; our educational system has thrown logic out the window in favor of rote memorization of facts and these people are the product of that machine. Even "smart" liberals are incapable of applying logic to a problem.

    People who can not think properly, tend to want the shortcuts in life and are drawn to liberal politics. I'll give you an example of this lack of thinking that I've never been able to penetrate.

    Taxes: In short, the liberal thinks we should just tax those evil corporations and use the money to (insert latest nanny-state program here).
    Well.. OK, so you point out that those companies will pass those taxes along to the consumer in the form of more costly commodities, or sell less and employ fewer people - in either case, reducing the buying power of the little guy and forcing more people to need the (insert nanny-state program here).
    This doesn't phase the liberal at all - he'll simply deny that business passes taxes on to the consumer. Or (if he had Economics 101 in junior college) state that since more people would need the program, we could simply raise corporate taxes (again) to cover the cost of the additional people forced onto the program by the reduced buying power...
    And completely missing the point that this would drive even more people into needing the (insert nanny-state program here).

    Circular logic - endless taxation forcing more and more people to need social programs to get by in life.

    They simply can't grasp that if we reduced taxation, very few people would need any social programs to get by.
    And they can't grasp that squeezing the taxpayer (even indirectly) increases poverty.

    And (back on topic) it never occurs to them that the gun laws they advocate do not affect criminals.

    It's all part of the same flawed reasoning. A world view made possible because many people can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

    Keith
     
  10. igor

    igor Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    802
    Location:
    Bravo Time Zone
    I see this from within a different society, where all firearms are registered and a theoretical "need" -based application procedure to obtain any must be gone through. Prevalence of firearms in households is according to different sources highest or in top 3 in the Western world despite that - and armed criminal violence occurs very rarely outside purposefully alienated criminal sub-cultures (we have our "1%" dimwits too).

    Our "antis" most usually combine the discussion on privately held firearms with their own draft dodging and a wish for us to join the agreement to banish anti-personnel mines. Both arguments they base on an illusion of the blessings of unilateral disarmament :banghead: . So there the discussion immediately goes from an individual to a international level.

    The more usual, passively "anti" populace is a result of urbanization and a lessened natural exposure to firearms, mostly in conjunction with hunting. Their diagnosis would be a combination of hoplophobia and a belief that criminal activity could be controlled through legislation. The issue of gun control is currently not very hot, we have it in place to a degree and the legislation was reformed to its current form just a couple of years ago.

    Even I, an avid shooter, see some possibility of a... how should I put it... steering effect of legislation on the nature of violent crime. This applies to the Scandinavian societies I well know, the results are there.

    Self-evidently the U.S. mileage will vary considerably, so don't bother with your faithful Zippos :what: ! I just have this pet peeve to try and share a comparable view with the few interested. :)
     
  11. Sean Smith

    Sean Smith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,922
    Gullibility and irrational fear. The usual sources of idiocy in politics, along with oxygen.
     
  12. Kamicosmos

    Kamicosmos Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,331
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri
    I picked Duped, but I feel it's probably a combination of Duped and Fear.
     
  13. 10-Ring

    10-Ring Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    California
    Because weak minded people will always follow the loudest voice.
     
  14. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,877
    I think "hate" is the operational word.
     
  15. MolonLabe416

    MolonLabe416 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    Bellingham WA
    "Individually, we do not bear arms because we are afraid. We bear arms as a declaration of capacity. An armed man can cope - either in the city or in the wilderness - and because he is armed, he is not afraid.

    The hoplophobe fears and, yes, hates us, because we are not afraid. We are overwhelmingly "other" than he, and in a way that emphasizes his afflictions."

    Jeff Cooper
     
  16. a9mmfan

    a9mmfan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Bonham, TX
    I voted "other" because I believe there are numerous people that really do not care about their cause, as much as they just want to be in control. Over the past ten years the gun control crowd has experienced their fare share of success. This seems to entice the "I just want to be in control" crowd even more.
     
  17. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    The arrogance displayed by the responses so far and the very nature of the question can only be equalled by those on the other side that view every gun owner as a knuckle-dragging, beer-swilling, uneducated redneck. Guess what? There are people out there that have looked at the issues and just happen to disagree with you. You have a choice. You can dismiss them all in this patronizing manner, assuming that all of their motives are from ignorance or evil. Or you can try opening up a dialogue of honest, open communication.

    We all know how well the first choice works.
     
  18. 45King

    45King Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I believe that anti's are anti because of intellectual weakness: they either can't or won't see the world as it is, and because of this defect, try to shape it into their vision of "Utopia." Their weakness precludes their being able to see that the world never has been, is not, and never will be a safe place. "Utopia" is nothing more than wishful thinking, and any attempts to achieve it will be counter productive. But they don't know that, and refuse to believe it.

    Some can be lead away from this thinking by the establishing of certain facts; some can be lead away by other means. There is a hard core of anti's who will never change their beliefs. Those are permanently locked into a mindset that will probably never change.
     
  19. Mostly Harmless

    Mostly Harmless Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    Taxachusetts
    I think this JPFO article says it best.

    If we're talking about the active antis.

    If we're talking about joe and jane sixpack, it's a combination of (media-inspired) fear and lack of familiarity.

    I didn't grow up around guns and learning to shoot as an adult, even though it was something I wanted to do a lot, came with a load of "ooh it's scary and dangerous" baggage.

    I still wouldn't sleep with one under my pillow -- in the bedside cabinet, but not under the pillow :)

    J.
     
  20. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    RAJ,

    Yeah, right on! It isn't just one-issue blindness - it's much larger than that. It's one thing to miss the fact that freedom, safety and prosperity can not simply be legislated into existence, but it's quite to miss the more important fact that to try and achieve this through empowering government is to regulate an ever-increasing part of your life. This (in the long run) means throwing away the very things you are trying to achieve.

    You can't have freedom if every aspect of your life and business is heavily regulated. You can't have safety if you aren't allowed to exercise your own self-defense. You can't have prosperity if you must pay for all of this control with onerous taxation.

    It's the great warm myth of the nanny-state that gives you everything you want while "someone else" has to pay for it. Just don't examine the details very closely.

    Keith
     
  21. Sunray

    Sunray Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,496
    Location:
    London, Ont.
    It's their raging stupidity that leads them to believe everything they see on TV and in movies is true. And there's the people who think their government will look after them no matter what.
    "... still wouldn't sleep with one under my pillow -- in the bedside cabinet, but not under the pillow..." Mostly, what do you think it's going to do? In the 30 plus years I've owned firearms, not once have I seen one jump up and start shooting. Not even when I lived in the slums of Guelph and had one under my pillow.
    "...opening up a dialogue of honest, open communication..." Malone, this is very difficult to do with people who don't respect you opinion in the first place. If you read the rhetoric that comes out of the anti-firearm clubs, you'll see they consistently use scare tactics, bandy about statistics that are misleading and outright untrue. You'll also notice how many of them will buy a firearm, sometimes illegally like Sarah Brady did, and still rant about how bad it is for you to own one. And the D.C. media hack who raved how bad firearms are only to himself shoot some kid for swimming in his back yard pool. I think his gun was illegally owned too. Seems they think there should be one law for them and one for everybody else. How do you talk rationally to irrational people?
     
  22. blades67

    blades67 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,771
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona, USA
    Other = All of the Above.
     
  23. waynzwld

    waynzwld Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    194
    Location:
    KasMo
    I chose "other".

    It is a combination of all of the above, plus I beleive there is a psychological disorder with antis. The JPFO covers it pretty well, but the total disconnect with reality, shown by antis makes me think they are in some way clinically insane.
     
  24. Bobarino

    Bobarino member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,625
    Location:
    western Washington
    i tend to think its the media only reporting on the evil done with guns and not a word reported on lives saved or good deeds accomplished or the sporting aspect of firearms. i have no facts to back that up, its just an opinion/observation.

    Bobby
     
  25. John Ross

    John Ross Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    St. Louis
    I agree with Standing Wolf's observation. I also agree with Malone LaVeigh that the way the question is raised could be seen as arrogant, although you can argue that that is what the "other" selection is for.

    I believe one explanation is what I call the "Rattlesnake/Cyanide" reaction.

    Many sensible people would say "I don't want a rattlesnake in my house for a pet, nor do I want to store cyanide around my home, even though I know it has its uses. I'm not too keen on my neighbors and the families of my kids' classmates having rattlesnakes and cyanide in their homes, either, since we visit sometimes."

    Getting into the whole Guns=Freedom thing falls pretty much on deaf ears because these people cannot visualize ever using a gun in self-defense, and suggesting America's future might be like the history of Cambodia seems completely ludicrous.

    The fact that some people want to pay for protection instead of providing it themselves (hire police rather than carry a gun) is not in itself reprehensible; I wouldn't dream of doing my own taxes or home renovation. The argument that works with some of these people is would they think a law just if it PROHIBITED me from working on my own house, forced me to rely entirely on government labor, and offered me no recourse when the shoddy government work resulted in my house collapsing or burning down, killing family members?

    I have a lot of relatives who are philosophically antis, but not to the point that they would take an active role like lobbying the capitol for more gun laws. They would just vote for more gun laws if given the chance. These people are not hateful or stupid; they like the idea of laws and rules and they can't see the terrible things that have happened elsewhere ever happening here.

    JR
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page