Hard to understand the illogic of anti-gunners

I think someone was right about Pollyannas.
I think also it isn't logic, ration, or reason. It's emotion.
And most importantly, an inability to appropriately assess the risk. Like the snake and the gun example.
Like cars and airplanes. People drive cars like maniacs. And have no fear about it.
Yet they are apprehensive on an airplane.
And last year 25,500 people were killed in vehicles, and probably no more than 100 in the entire world were killed in air crashes.
So where is the risk?
dc
 
I think someone was right about Pollyannas.
I think also it isn't logic, ration, or reason. It's emotion.
And most importantly, an inability to appropriately assess the risk. Like the snake and the gun example.
Like cars and airplanes. People drive cars like maniacs. And have no fear about it.
Yet they are apprehensive on an airplane.
And last year 25,500 people were killed in vehicles, and probably no more than 100 in the entire world were killed in air crashes.
So where is the risk?
dc
Not to be off topic, but the fears associated with flying tend to also hinge on a general fear of heights, little to no control over outcome, and the "impending doom" feeling one would get falling out of the sky.
Cars give us a feeling of control and leave us on the ground. It's inherently more natural for us to feel safer in this situation (regardless of the statistical probability of death).

Getting back to firearms, that same rationale could be applied to guns vs. knives. A knife is a more personal, up-close weapon that leaves people feeling "more in control." Even if you are un-armed facing an attacked with one.
A firearm simulates the feeling of "impending doom," and the illusion of instantaneous peril and death adds to the irrational fear of them.

I personally feel like all anti-gunners are western society's Aztecs. Calling guns "boomsticks" and thinking that they are inherently evil because they dont understand them and people magically die.

It's all rather infantile.
 
Most anti-gunners I have run into have one or several of these traits 1) fear all guns 2)Led a sheltered life, and don't think anything bad will happen to them so a gun is not necessary 3) are protected by armed guards so no one else should have a gun 4) feel that gun crime can be legislated away 5) want to take the choice of "having a gun or not" away from everyone else. 6)feel, if we just make a few more anti-gun laws the criminals will stop shooting people and if that doesn't work, pass more and more gun laws! 7) want to control everyone and decide who has certain rights and who doesn't! 8) feel they are superior and know what is good for everyone else. The only way their thinking might change is if they become a VICTIM of a mugging, home invasion, robbery or in a situation where they suddenly realize they are vulnerable, unprotected and afraid for their life! After one or more times being in this situation, rethinking the stance against gun ownership and training sometimes can happen. Good luck trying to convince an anti-gunner without this "type" of experience!
 
Some of the opposition is understandable to me anyway. I was raised around guns. I've had a gun of my own since I was 7 or 8. The first was 410 shotgun but I shot a 20 gauge of my dad's before that. I'm in my early 60s and I've had at least two pistols, two shotguns, and a rifle since I was in my early 20s.

My dad, his friends, my friends, members of our family all had guns. Everyone I knew had at least a shotgun but most had rifles as well. Few had pistols. My dad had a 22 pistol that I still shoot today. Nevertheless, none of these people that I knew ever owned a gun (or desired to own one as far as I know) that possessed the firepower as some of the guns today. Nor did they carry a gun either openly or concealed. Nor did I ever hear complaints about violations 2nd amendment rights cause they couldn't do these things.

The world has changed alot since the 50s, 60s, and 70s and gun control issues are a part of the adjustment to the change. Not all the anti-gun people are after our guns and against concealed carry. Personally, the few I know largely target high capacity mags and insufficient background checks on private sales. I know there are others that would like to go much further, but the "anti-gun" crowd I know pretty much all own guns and don't have what I would call a irrational or illogical position toward them.

I'd support the position on high capacity mags and definitely support better background checks on private sales but I don't know how to do these things in a way that prevents the bad guys from obtaining guns. There's tons of high capacity mags out there already and I see no way to police the background checks on private sales. Such laws would make lawbreakers out of some otherwise law abiding people and still not prevent the bad guys from obtaining guns.
 
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?

Its amazing that 10,000 men have stood in a field wielding sword and shield against one another and can keep up with who the bad guys are. Surely 25 people in an office can do the same or as least as well as those you would call for help (who are complete strangers).
 
The world has changed alot since the 50s, 60s, and 70s and gun control issues are a part of the adjustment to the change. Not all the anti-gun people are after our guns and against concealed carry. Personally, the few I know largely target high capacity mags and insufficient background checks on private sales. I know there are others that would like to go much further, but the "anti-gun" crowd I know pretty much all own guns and don't have what I would call a irrational or illogical position toward them.

No, it really hasn't. From Ecclesiastes 1, written about 3000 years ago:

9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.
 
I'd support the position on high capacity mags and definitely support better background checks on private sales but I don't know how to do these things in a way that prevents the bad guys from obtaining guns. There's tons of high capacity mags out there already and I see no way to police the background checks on private sales. Such laws would make lawbreakers out of some otherwise law abiding people and still not prevent the bad guys from obtaining guns.

+1.

In all groups, there are the law-abiders, law-breakers, and the indifferent. No different with gun owners. If there's a federal law requiring background checks on all private sales, that's a good step in the right direction. I don't care if its policed 100%, just one additional check is better than no check.

You're being facetious, right?

Nope, not one bit.
 
an unenforced law is the same as no law. Expanding the law (in this case, to include private sales) and yet choosing not to enforce it doesn't make it any better.

Until the Federal government chooses to pursue cases of attempted illegal purchases (e.g. lying on form 4473 and being denied at point of sale) then I do not support broadening background checks and making the system more onerous than it already is.

gun control does not equal crime control.
 
The Alta View Hospital incident here in Utah several years ago proved how well such logic works.
Irate man with deer rifle was encountered early on BEFORE killing a nurse by an UNARMED security guy who could do nothing to prevent anything the shooter wanted to do.

So-called "gun free" zones merely create fish-in-a-barrel scenarios for anybody who wants to shoot people bad enough to ignore laws & signs.

Un-armed hospital security is no security at all against such people.
Denis
 
In my home town, the Westroads Mall used to have armed security in the 1990's. The Powers That Be decided it was too much of a liability to have armed security and made the guards go unarmed. Then a few years ago, some nut walked into Van Mauer with an AK-47 and shot up the place. I'm sure some anti gunner said "It's a good thing security didn't have guns, someone might have been hurt"

Logic and facts have no place in the mind of an anti.
 
Many people feel it is better for you and themselves to be killed by a criminal than to take the steps or have the means to defend themselves. This mindset feels that to own a gun for defense is uncivilized. They are willing to pay other people to manage the super human power of the gun and protect them, but never would they protect themselves.

These same people eat meat, but would refuse to kill and butcher an animal...go figure...
 
The world has changed alot since the 50s, 60s, and 70s
No, it really hasn't. From Ecclesiastes 1, written about 3000 years ago..
there is nothing new under the sun.

Things have changed quite a lot from the days when kids were encouraged by their dads to carry pocket knives to school, common sense seemed to prevail most of the time in those days.
Zero tolerance and similar stupidity was not yet invented.

Everything under the sun is new now - The world would be absolutely unrecognizable to those who wrote the Bible.
What hasnt changed since then is us.. we're still the same old flawed species that routinely defies logic and acts in despicable ways towards each other while running rampant across our planet.

Fortunately for us lately, and despite several recent mass shootings, our population as a whole does seem to understand that guns really arent the problem.
The problem is the same as always... some of us are just messed up.
We're not going to fix this - our right to protect ourselves from criminals and our government comes at a cost.
Similarly, some pedestrians who dont own a car will be run over by one being driven by a drunk.

It seems for the most part, we're responding to a small-but-loud minority who just doest accept reality, therefore their arguments become illogical and no amount of effort will bring them around.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top