Holes in Anti gun theory
- Thread starter NateKirk
- Start date
globemaster3
New member
Manta, I'm glad we agree on the point.
My discussion was trying to demonstrate that even in Great Britian, where personal gun ownership was severely curtailed, the bad guys found other means to continue killing people. Fair enough?
And here's to hoping I can catch at least 1 All Blacks game this year.
My discussion was trying to demonstrate that even in Great Britian, where personal gun ownership was severely curtailed, the bad guys found other means to continue killing people. Fair enough?
And here's to hoping I can catch at least 1 All Blacks game this year.
You're being too logical. You need to get into the mind of a true anti. People who hate guns really hate them as if they were somehow alive. To them, a gun has a persona, a bad spirit, an "evil presence" about it. Anyone who willingly touches a gun turns bad, power hungry, and embraces evil. Or from a more "scientific" perspective, the gun sets off a host of neurochemicals that cause an uptick in aggression in an already unstable person.
They believe that there is something vile about a gun that can fundamentally changes a person who decides to purchase one. To them, the Gun created and amplified dictators, fascists, and mass murderers. Its not just a tool, but an instrument of pure evil that can turn an ordinary goodhearted person into a death-maniac.
Don't believe me? I have seen and heard firsthand on a number of occasions how these people really think. We need to better understand what we are up against before we engage in crafting logical arguments.
Last edited:
Skans, I agree, that's how they think.
But, you left something out.
Yet, somehow, to them, the presence of a badge (police), a uniform (police & military) or just a paycheck (private security/bodyguards) CANCELS OUT ALL THE EVIL of the gun in their hands.
I could allow them their delusion in peace, if it were consistant (and if they left me and mine alone), but its not consistant.
We've got tens of thousands of badged, often uniformed "death-maniacs" patrolling our streets 24/7, and the antis are fine with that. In fact, many want more of them.
Illogical is too kind a word for this double standard. Insane comes to mind, but since there are clear legal and medical definitions for insane, and most antis don't qualify, I'll just settle for STUPID!
But, you left something out.
Yet, somehow, to them, the presence of a badge (police), a uniform (police & military) or just a paycheck (private security/bodyguards) CANCELS OUT ALL THE EVIL of the gun in their hands.
I could allow them their delusion in peace, if it were consistant (and if they left me and mine alone), but its not consistant.
We've got tens of thousands of badged, often uniformed "death-maniacs" patrolling our streets 24/7, and the antis are fine with that. In fact, many want more of them.
Illogical is too kind a word for this double standard. Insane comes to mind, but since there are clear legal and medical definitions for insane, and most antis don't qualify, I'll just settle for STUPID!
Some do, but there are also the ones who see the gun as political capital.
When there's a horrible shooting, there's an angry crowd Mr. Politician has to placate. If he's honest, he can highlight the need for better mental health care, better enforcement of existing laws, the need to teach gun safety in the home, and...
Yeah, he's lost the crowd. They need a 5-second soundbite. Now.
So, the easy solution is to pound the podium and shout, "we need to get these guns off the streets! For the children!"
The crowd cheers, and Mr. Politician looks like he's doing something. It's vitally important that legislators appear to be doing something. That's exactly what most gun-control legislation is: futile but symbolic measures to make the masses think the problem is being addressed.
The underlying dishonesty isn't surprising; that's politics. But those folks are more dangerous than the folks who are just irrationally afraid of guns.
44Amp I have to agree with your summation: "Illogical is too kind a word for this double standard. Insane comes to mind". Stupid? No, if they were simply stupid, I wouldn't be too concerned with them. I have no fear of my liberties being pounced upon by low IQ individuals. Delusional. Dangerously delusional, I think that might be a good fit.
And to Tom's comment, opportunistic politicians - that's an entirely different category. The ones that use guns to whip up the Delusional into forgetting about all of the ridiculous legislation they voted for which their constituents never asked for, don't need and would vote them out of office over, but for the pandering to their gun delusion. Now, there's a truly dangerous lot!
And to Tom's comment, opportunistic politicians - that's an entirely different category. The ones that use guns to whip up the Delusional into forgetting about all of the ridiculous legislation they voted for which their constituents never asked for, don't need and would vote them out of office over, but for the pandering to their gun delusion. Now, there's a truly dangerous lot!
The politicians are the most dangerous, as their actions can and do create law.
What I meant by STUPID wasn't that the individuals have low IQ or are uneducated, I meant it is a stupid belief, stupidly clung to by individuals who certainly ought to know better.
As Forrest Gump says, "stupid is as stupid does..."
What I meant by STUPID wasn't that the individuals have low IQ or are uneducated, I meant it is a stupid belief, stupidly clung to by individuals who certainly ought to know better.
As Forrest Gump says, "stupid is as stupid does..."
anti-gunners want a result.
So I had a 3 sentence confrontation with my MiL last evening. My SiL works at a juco and one of the kids has gotten a bit to aggro for a classroom setting. Apparently, security had to be called. I don't agree with disrespecting or threatening a teacher in any way. Anyhow, so the MiL said (unfortunately, to me) "Can you believe that they want to allow carry on campuses?" So I dropped a bunch of cold, wet statistics on that fire about how CC users are less likely to commit violent crimes than the non-ccw public and I capped it off with "but what would keep said stupid student from coming with a gun even if it were banned on campus?" And she said "We can't talk about this." I said "ok." Case closed.
My point isn't to criticize and hold her up for judgement. She just wants her daughter to be safe in her place of work. That's laudable by any standard, and the way parents should be.
Here's the point:
Please learn from my mistake. If I had been smarter, I would have said "why do you want to make your daughter defenseless?"
Anti-gunners want a result. In this case, it was 'for my daughter to be safe.' The problem is with methodology; theirs is backwards. They hear MOST in the media about gun-related violence, so their planning for safety is to remove guns from the equation.
No one thinks "what happens if you student comes with a pool cue?" or "what happens if your student shows up angry and carrying the tennis racket from gym class?" The point is that they want a result. If they feel that they are truly in danger and they want the result to be safety, you should point out that HAVING a gun, being trained, and being a responsible user, is more likely to guarantee their safety from a myriad of possibilities than to try to remove each potential weapon from the grasp of all potential antagonists by passing a new law (which might be ignored anyhow).
If you want to sway hearts and minds, think in terms of results and figure out the best way to point out to them that the more they ban the right to keep and bear the more they are hurting their own desire to be safe from random violence.
So I had a 3 sentence confrontation with my MiL last evening. My SiL works at a juco and one of the kids has gotten a bit to aggro for a classroom setting. Apparently, security had to be called. I don't agree with disrespecting or threatening a teacher in any way. Anyhow, so the MiL said (unfortunately, to me) "Can you believe that they want to allow carry on campuses?" So I dropped a bunch of cold, wet statistics on that fire about how CC users are less likely to commit violent crimes than the non-ccw public and I capped it off with "but what would keep said stupid student from coming with a gun even if it were banned on campus?" And she said "We can't talk about this." I said "ok." Case closed.
My point isn't to criticize and hold her up for judgement. She just wants her daughter to be safe in her place of work. That's laudable by any standard, and the way parents should be.
Here's the point:
Please learn from my mistake. If I had been smarter, I would have said "why do you want to make your daughter defenseless?"
Anti-gunners want a result. In this case, it was 'for my daughter to be safe.' The problem is with methodology; theirs is backwards. They hear MOST in the media about gun-related violence, so their planning for safety is to remove guns from the equation.
No one thinks "what happens if you student comes with a pool cue?" or "what happens if your student shows up angry and carrying the tennis racket from gym class?" The point is that they want a result. If they feel that they are truly in danger and they want the result to be safety, you should point out that HAVING a gun, being trained, and being a responsible user, is more likely to guarantee their safety from a myriad of possibilities than to try to remove each potential weapon from the grasp of all potential antagonists by passing a new law (which might be ignored anyhow).
If you want to sway hearts and minds, think in terms of results and figure out the best way to point out to them that the more they ban the right to keep and bear the more they are hurting their own desire to be safe from random violence.