Hard to understand the illogic of anti-gunners

V

vito

New member
At a corporate board meeting yesterday (I work for a large not-for-profit health care organization), the IL concealed carry law came up, and most of those present were really happy that the bill prohibits the carrying of a weapon in a hospital or related health care settings. Statements were made about how much safer our facilities will be with this prohibition in place. One board member then said, words to the effect of: why would you think that those who are likely to create mayhem will honor the law, while such a law surely will stop the law abiding from having a weapon to stop a criminal? This seemed to confound most of the board members. I then added a comment: our security staff is unarmed. Criminals will not follow the new law any more than they obey current laws. Banning guns from our facilities just ensures that the criminal will not have to worry about "a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun". I was looked at in a way that made clear that most present thought I was too crazy to even talk to.
 
Some people have been brought up in a very sheltered environment... never been mugged, never had their house burglarized or their car stolen or broken into, never had contact with someone who wanted to do them harm or take advantage of them. They are what I call "Pollyannas":

(n.) Excessively or blindly optimistic people

(a.) Unreasonably or illogically optimistic
 
I've come to the conclusion that antis don't speak or understand the logical or rational, only emotional. Something in their upbringing has conditioned them, like Pavlov's dog, to associate guns with bad instead of the evil hands and minds holding and controlling the gun.
 
I know a number of people who, if you put a rattlesnake and a gun in front of them and said you would take one away, they would say, "Take the gun and leave the snake." They are ignorant (I mean that kindly - they really don't know) or brain washed. Most people have trouble putting risk in perspective.
 
The board members are just playing stupid; they don't want to let on that they have thought this through. They really don't care if the hospital gets shot up as long as:
1) they personally don't get shot
2) they can blame somebody else

"It's not our fault, we clearly had a sign on each door prohibiting weapons"

A sign on the door is cheaper than trained armed guards. Allowing untrained ad hoc armed guards might expose them to a liability claim. Always follow the money.
 
You cant understand a illogical position by using more logic.
They simply have their own reasons for sticking their heads in the sand.
Giving you the crazy look is a dismissive way to dodge a discussion they dont want to have.
 
The distressing thing about it is, they are free to choose not to own or carry a gun, but they just made that choice for every person in the facility. Without even asking them.

They might think they are limiting their liability to a claim, but I think it just went up a great deal. There are armed guards at Walmart or the shopping mall, large offices, and in schools. For a facility to refuse to employ armed response in this day and age is foolish, and to me, criminal.
 
Rather than devoting a thread to bashing people who "don't get it," how about talking about ways to reach them?

You might not be able to persuade the entire board to go to the range with you, but what about one or two of the ones you know better?

Gather some data on assaults in hospitals. Spend some time in the ER and talk to the cops who are in and out. I'd bet you'll find some who are there a lot, and who have opinions about this.

Think about how to talk to them without using lines like "...good guy with a gun... bad guy with a gun..." IMHO, when we're talking with intelligent people, this sort of thing just makes us sound like we're spouting a party line. Let's show them that we can think independently, without resorting to clichés.
 
Here in Arizona, the hospitals are all posted as gun free zones by state law. Many medical offices have also used that law and posted as gun free zones. I have to wonder what it will take for them to finally get it?
Paul B.
 
I always find it odd that a large medical establishmemt would fail to have (at minimum) armed security.

They have drugs with street value, large number of patients and visitors that are/may be mentally unstable, deal with people under highly stressful and emotional situations on a daily basis and probably even more reasons that are potential powderkegs. Locks and procedure are one thing, but discouragement isn't gonna stop someone deadset on doing something rotten.

I don't think I would like to work or visit such a place. My local hospital at least has armed security and the campus police usually maintain a presense in the building.
 
There are hundreds of stories about armed civilians protecting inocent victoms. A gun has never gotten up and shot someone on its own. Only when a violent person gets a hold of it. And with all those valuable drugs in the hospital, an addict could conceivably use a gun to get at them. If I worked there, I would feel safer if I had a gun or knew there was an armed guard nearby.
 
From my point of view there is no logic to such laws, only emotion.
Vanya, you make a very good point. We can't win them all but a few converts at a time is an excellent tactic. Then they will tell 2 friends and they will tell 2 friends .......
 
its simple.. its not that they misunderstand. Its not that they actually believe their argument or their point. Its not that they are trying to protect or prevent any ills from happening. Its that they do not want people to have guns- period and will use whatever argument they feel will allow them to further that agenda. You win these kinds of things by reaching the fence sitters, not by any attempt to win over the antis.

Look at it like this: if you own a business and you have plan to one day- move your business across the street to a better location but find out that another fellow is planning to open a icecream shop in that exact place.. you don't run down to the city council and ask them not to license him because it derails your plans.. you say that they should not license him because icecream is bad and makes kids fat and causes diabetes. No matter how much the people who want the icecream shop try to convince you that icecream is not bad.. you insist that it is and then claim that it causes cancer and hair loss.
 
Last edited:
One of my best friends was working through his masters degree at at night with a fellow student who is a cop. One night, the cop's sweater rode up a little and his off-duty weapon was exposed. Mind you, this was not an MP5 or S&W M29, but a compact auto. My buddy is not a gun guy, but he thinks it was a compact Glock.

Well this caused all sorts of consternation among the course instructor, the other students, and the department administration.

The cop, who is apparently the world's most patient guy, wrote a letter to the department head explaining that as a LEO, he was required to carry a weapon at all times and after much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, they reluctantly dropped the issue.

Unbelievable...
 
It's a cultural thing to a large degree. There's also a wide range of opinions as to what should be illegal in the anti-gun community. Most of the gun control people I know focus their attention on the ease to which bad guys can get guns.

My response is that I don't know what type of "gun control" would prevent such a thing. If someone could come up with a control that would prevent bad guys from getting guns and still recognize law abiding citizens' rights, I'd support it in a minute. When someone starts shooting other folks and they don't get tired or run out of ammo then someone has to stop them. An armed good guy is the best way to do that.
 
Banning guns from our facilities just ensures that the criminal will not have to worry about "a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun". I was looked at in a way that made clear that most present thought I was too crazy to even talk to.
Click to expand...

You're crazy for lip-synching NRA's motto at a board meeting. Why not push for armed security instead of pushing your personal agenda?

Lets imagine a bad guy (or group) comes in and start shooting, how many people do you want to start drawing their gun? If you had your weapon present, are you 100% sure you would start shooting at the "right" bad guy? And if the "wrong" person was shot by you or another "good" person, who's liable?

As a board member, you should put the organization in front of your personal agenda. Plus your local law doesn't allow it so change it or look for alternative (ie, armed security).

The ill-logic of pro-gunners-at-all-cost, that's more disturbing to me.
 
Lets imagine a bad guy (or group) comes in and start shooting, how many people do you want to start drawing their gun? If you had your weapon present, are you 100% sure you would start shooting at the "right" bad guy? And if the "wrong" person was shot by you or another "good" person, who's liable?
Click to expand...
You're being facetious, right?
 
The thing to remember is this: these policies are generally driven by fears of liability. The lawyers have already told the board of directors that allowing civilians to carry is a recipe for disaster. That's what you're working against.

This is very similar to the campaign to ban guns in the workplace in the 1980's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top