The anti-mindset

[Lumpy]

There was yet another anti-gun screed in the StarTrib today (won't even bother to link, you can search for it easily enough). I had considered responding to it and going through the usual point-by-point rebuttal when it occurred to me what the real problem is: A large number of people, who may not be hoplophobes in the literal sense of having an undue morbid fear of firearms, nonetheless are coming from an entirely different attitude than we are, which makes gun debates mostly pointless. They quite simply regard it as bizarre that anyone could ever want to possess a weapon: a tool for (potentially) making killing other people easier. They regard "safety" as an environment where threats are rare or non-existent, and therefore presume that fewer guns means more safety. That the very definition of civilization is people abandoning the private use of force and agreeing to turn over security to the State, which will achieve safety by deterrence, dealing with systemic causes of crime and violence, and efficiently catching the (hopefully rare) outliers that do commit violence. That one shouldn't have weapons (I won't say just guns) outside of a clear and special need for them.

Viewed through this lens, a lot of the anti rhetoric makes more sense (from its own standpoint at least). Of course gun owners must be trigger-happy, Dirty Harry-wannabe yahoos. Of course banning guns will bring us closer to the promised land of peace and safety. Of course a State monopoly on weapons and force is and should be the goal of a civilized society. And the thing is, this would almost make sense in a society that was already so nearly violence-free that eliminating weapons would mostly affect the tiny number of true psychos out there.

So how does one address this mindset? Instead of nitpicking debates about the details, one must question their fundamental axioms:

• Gun ownership is paranoid, regressive, or pathological? Only to those who have a deep mistrust of freedom from government control.
• Killing and murder are wrong? Well of course they are, but legitimate self-defense isn't murder- or do you prefer the pseudo-pacifist strategy of letting the State do your dirty work for you conveniently out of sight?
• The State can provide security? Gun ownership and carrying has increased in popularity in direct proportion to the perception that the State is failing its guardianship role.
• The State can be trusted with a monopoly on weapons? For how long? Crooked leaders and corrupt police working together to oppress the people is a plague worldwide.

In short, the debate is rather like a debate with vegetarians: you can go over the individual pros and cons of a meat-inclusive diet, but you're unlikely to sway the minds of people who somehow think that killing poor innocent animals is wrong. You'll always regard them as squeamish and irrational, they'll always regard you as a troglodyte.

[MJY65]

I doubt you can ever change enough minds through discussion to make a difference. Someday, they will pay people with weapons to take yours away. Then you will need to make a decision.

[photogpat]

I've been trying for awhile to understand what drives the other side. Outside of Bloomberg's organized "grass roots"... I feel they're driven by a few factors:

1) not growing up around guns; uninformed about terminology, definitions, technology, and culture

They never had a Dad/Mom/Grandpa/etc who taught them about safety...or never even saw a gun growing up. Never had an emotional attachment to shooting, hunting or marksmanship as a bonding activity. Never took it upon themselves to learn any better. Can't be bothered to learn terms or laws. Gets all their information about guns from the media.

2) viewing the debate in absolutes from a pacifist or religious perspective

Difficult to reason with. See guns as an instrument of death. Some experience true psychological terror when encountering (or thinking) about guns and the people who own them.

3) fervant supporters of the Democrat platform

Believe that support for gun control is inherrent to the party platform. Support it unequivocally, facts be damned.

4) Gun owners who only own firearms for hunting

Believe that no one needs an evil black rifle or handgun to shoot deer or ducks. Fail to see the true nature of gun control as people/behavior control. Occasionally see "assault" weapons as a "sacrificial" lamb to be given to the gun controllers believing that appeasment will prevent future bans or restrictions on their hunting firearms.

5) The Intelligencia

Believe guns to be bourgeois; beneath them. See no purpose for firearms in modern society at all. Like to cite terms like "gun death". Frequently co-opted by groups like Bloomberg's.

Mix and match to your heart's content.

[Stylin750]

Do you know who else had this mindset? The Germans under Hitler, the Russians under Stalin and the list goes on and on and on and will continue to do so. The antis really need to look at history and learn from it otherwise we are all screwed and doomed to repeat it. Heck only 500 million people were butchered by their own governments last century. That's what happens when the people give their governments the monopoly on force and violence. It gets used on thier people. But heck the mindset is it'll be different this time but guess what it never is.

We are at point of complacency is the political cycle and its quite apparent with the rise of these antis and the people willing to throw away their freedoms and its at this point a dictator historically takes over and a bloody take over is used and society is plunged into a kind of political structure. Is socialism or Marxism. And these people who are screaming for strict gun control and socialism will find out what their are screaming and fighting for and I got news for the socialists and antis once they get it they won't like it and will wish they never asked for it.

[jshuberg]

You're over complicating it. It's a cult. They believe with blind faith that guns are bad, regardless of any facts, and cannot be convinced otherwise. They will froth at the mouth and shake their fist at the sky, and even dedicate millions of their own monies to passing laws in order to forward their religion.

Convincing an anti-gun cultist that there is a legitimate reason for private gun ownership is just as reasonable as convincing a Muslim that bacon is tasty. It's just not going to happen. We have to either ignore them, or when they interfere with us and the exercise of our rights, we must defeat them. We can't change their minds, but we can defeat them so completely that they abandon the fight.

They are in the minority, and being a Republic that implements a democratic process, they can only do the harm that we allow them to do.

I don't care to understand them. It's cool that some do, but I simply want to contain them and/or defeat them so their religion doesn't infect enough people to effect my life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lumpy]

When I read or hear about all the massacres taking place in different parts of the world, it puzzles me that there are so many people who deal with deadly threats by (1.)Hoping they're in a "safe" area. (2.)Screaming and running away (3.)Asking the government to make the bad people go away. Are that many people averse to arming themselves or fighting back?

I half-seriously wonder if there's a genetic predisposition to how people react to the threat of violence- by cowering fear, or furious retaliation. Maybe our population today is a random mix of nobles and peasants, who were originally bred by centuries of feudalism.

[Chunkychuck]

Maybe our population today is a random mix of nobles and peasants, who were originally bred by centuries of feudalism.

+1
The American experiment of freedom is quite young considering history and its governments.

[jshuberg]

The fight response is a learned response. Those who have never trained to fight, those who have no skills to fight, simply don't see fighting as a viable option. Logically they might recognize it, but it's not in their palette of emotional or responsive actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crbutler]

As has been said of the pro hunting side of the coin; its not the people driving the antis that one hopes to convince, they are not swayable. Its the large group of moderates who will swing the vote one way or the other.

Those people are susceptible to logical arguments and reasoned debate.

The hope is that some reasoned gun owners will show them the logical reasons that the anti's views are flawed.

Unfortunately, even here amongst ourselves I see evidence that we would turn off a moderate person. The folks that say open carry is good as it desensitizes the public to guns are bad... I have news for you, operant conditioning (the psychological theory behind this) is very uncomfortable to the subjects- they have to WANT to be desensitized to go through it- ala fear of flying, etc. otherwise all it does is stress them out.

Similarly, all the "tree of Liberty" quotes cause no end of trouble.

A few left leaning non gun owners I have talked with about this also state that the public commentary of "Its the second amendment, it is our right" really miss the point. A better way of putting that argument is to address why the founders thought it necessary to place this in the constitution, such as it is every human's right to defend themselves (and leave who you are defending against at the basic level- a rapist, etc.) Some groups (Jewish, Black) also look favorably on discussion of how the examples of bad behavior towards their groups were decreased by them owning means of self defense, and that one of the signs of problems ahead was when the government wanted to take away guns from them for whatever reason (but not de facto labeling the people who want to take them away as "Nazis or Communists" to make the argument, you come across as hate filled and labeling then.

Pointing out how hypocritical the people who are leading the disarmament charge are (ie that Rosie O'Donnell has numerous armed security and said something to the effect that of course, she needed protection) can work as long as you don't go on about how she is a fat cow...

Look at some of the comments on this forum itself and you will see several things that can cause issues down the road. The pictures of those clowns with their OC protest will undo years of logical presentation to the middle. Quite frankly, they just look crazy and dangerous. Gas masks, carrying in a combat position, (finger just out of the trigger guard) waving the guns around in a parody of the Islamist fighters, etc.

If you don't think the antis look at places like this and use some of the more asinine quotes as evidence against us, you would be sadly mistaken.

[sigman]

Willed ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is at the forefront of the anti-gun narrative.

[Stylin750]

Crbutler your kinda missing the point. There is no compromise. If we compromise with the antis, we lose. Its that plain and simple. Look what happened with the armed Russians under Joseph Stalin. He went to armed Russians and made a compromise with them. They made a deal that if the armed Russians if you stay out of what we are doing to the unarmed section of the populous we will leave you alone. The armed section complied and made the deal. And guess what happened next. Stalin when got done with the unarmed populous turned around and massacred the armed section.

I also don't buy so much into anything the armed section in society today does much to sway the society one way of another. The media will demonize us in any and every way possible. Even if it is a good story the propaganda machine will twist it into a negative story. And everyone in society has a strong personal view and it isn't gunna change very easily. The sheep in society today that may be sway able really dont care either way and the sheep will always vote for the sharpest suit and the best talker. Thats how we got the current disaster twice. And today's society society has an attention span of about ten minutes. And story can blow up and die down in a matter of minutes then give it a couple of days its completely gone and already forgotten.

[crbutler]

I don't think I am missing the point.

We need to keep stating the good reasoned arguments to the majority of folks.

We won't convince the antis, but being jerks like that open carry with assault rifles group, you sure won't convince the more reasonable uniformed folks.

I am not for banning open carry, I just think that using it as a means of expression is about as moronic as it gets. And the statement that by open carrying you will convince folks that guys with guns are normal is not going to work either, after all, cops carry openly, and people still get worked up seeing guns in public. The law saying open carry is legal was, at least according to one of the guys who wrote it, there to keep concealed carry people from being harassed if someone thought they saw it or if you printed it somehow, it wasn't written that way so tactical Timmy could march down Main Street looking like GI joe. If they keep it up, the law will get changed and some good folks who are as an example changing a tire will be harassed over the fact that someone saw a holster on the side of the road.

We live in a democracy. If we piss off more than we convince, we lose.

[Nougat]

The law saying open carry is legal was, at least according to one of the guys who wrote it, there to keep concealed carry people from being harassed if someone thought they saw it or if you printed it somehow,

probably not.
but Who? if I am supposed to believe, that is. I need to know who it is that said it.

[crbutler]

David Gross

[Nougat]

David Jonathan Gross (born February 19, 1941) is an American particle physicist //
soooo still don't believe you and not going to search to prove you right...
link(s)?