The Anti-Gun Religion?

B

butch50

New member
"It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart" or words to that effect - a quote from a movie.

IMHO Anti-gun people DO NOT HATE GUNS BASED ON LOGIC !!!!! They are EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN !!!

They sometimes think that they are logical, and attempt to use logical arguments, but; once you back them into a corner they drop any pretense of logic completely and revert to type.

Having said that, how do you convince an emotional soccer mom that guns are not bad when she has never touched a gun, was not raised in a gun friendly environment and watches TV every night and believes what's on the TV?

It is tantamount to trying to convert a Baptist to a Catholic, or vice versa.

I am open to suggestion.
 
In my experiences, you can't. If they are on the "fence" then you could but you have to treat them with kids gloves but those like diaz, brady, etc.. there is no way.

To make an example: Sarah Brady has cancer, she got cancer from smoking. She doesn't blame, sue, or set up a web page to ban cigarettes. Yet she believes that banning guns, even if they are just "some" guns, will fix the ills of the world.

You don't hear her screaming about kids and cigarettes (which even with over 1000+ laws on the books, kids still get cigarettes). You don't hear her or see her spending millions of dollars to combat one of the biggest killers of people on this planet, cancer from cigarettes (not to mention the lung thing).

No, you see her trying to ban or restrict guns. Her husband was shot, with a .22 no less, but she is going against AR's, AK's, Mac's, Tec's, .50's, and a whole list of others, but why not the .22? It was a man armed with a .22 that shot her husband, it wasn't an EBR (as they call them) or even a .50 caliber. Sure, it was a handgun but I don't think that the model used was on the brady bill or even a SNS.

So, it's not logic that they use, it's just plain illogical emotion. They will never change their minds because they have a "cause", no matter how stupid that cause may seem. It's a way for them to "deal" with their life. And for others that jump on the bandwagon, I don't think that it's out of really caring but the feeling of belonging to something. A group that will accept them.

Then you have people like michael moore, whom I believe did what he did because it was "hip" at the time and he could make millions, which he did. It pays to be anti nowadays. Yet when he retires or is considered a has been, he will just sit in his large home and count his money. He really has no care about what he puts out as long as it makes him money.

Then you have the misguided, thanks to their parents and the tv. Those that are so gullible that they will believe anything. Why do you think that the 419 scams make so many millions/billions per year? Why do you think that the lotto has become a big money maker in the states? That they will make it big, or in our case, cause the world to become all warm and fuzzy where everyone hugs each other and sings that camp fire song.

Then you have the big cities that all you see on tv and hear on the radio are the "bad things" when it concerns guns. Then you read/see the things that people have to go through when they defend themselves but are raked through the coals. The gun becomes a tool that they don't want because it's either "evil", the "cause of all the worlds ills", or "will get you into trouble even if you are justified in it's use". You never see good stories with defensive uses of guns.

Case in point here in Springfield and Eugene: The local newspaper (not the tv news) did a report of a shooting, self defense, in Springfield. They did a big write up on it, of course demonized the person that defended himself, and then awaited the grand jury decision.

The grand jury came back with a justified shooting. There was NO follow up in the newspapers, the tv, or anything. There were some letters in the opinion pages that demonized the shooter, calling him this and that, demonizing him, but that was to be expected here in Eugene and the Register Guard. No letters of support (which I wrote one) was printed. It then "fell off" the radar screen. If the grand jury would have said that it was to go to court, you better believe that the newspapers and the news would have made a big deal out of it.

I hate to say it, but that is the nature of the beast that we are up against. We just want to buy our guns, our ammo, have fun, and protect ourselves but there will always be those that will work on emotion and flawed logic and thus will ensure that we continue to be on the defensive when it comes to a basic Right.

Wayne
 
If you think about it...
We are sort of at war.. a civil war.

Those of us (the minority/gun owners) are swimming uphill.
We the constitutionalists own guns and understand their need.

But the majority of our country knows nothing about gn laws, or gun rights, all they get fed is the crap from the anti's, in the schools, nothing is mentioned about gun rights.

In my college American history class, they never once went over anything dealing with guns.

In my Legal systems class, once again nothing about guns.

Both of these classes went over the Constitution pretty good, but when it came to the 2nd...NOTHING the teacher even made a joke "the 2nd... yeah thats the redneck one"

We just have to keep our heads, never forget WE ARE the right ones. and try to win this war...not with violence or rude comments (the anti's love those) but with knowledge and a nice sense of the law, and maybe some american history.
 
Having said that, how do you convince an emotional soccer mom that guns are not bad when she has never touched a gun, was not raised in a gun friendly environment and watches TV every night and believes what's on the TV?
Click to expand...

When you find out, let me know. My wife has touched guns, has fired guns, was raised in a gun friendly environment and still hates guns. I guess she believes everything her teachers and the reporters told her. She's against the use of guns for self defense.

She feels hunting type guns are ok, sort of, as long as they are nowhere near children, but hunting isn't ok unless you're in the woods starving.

Perhaps more of an anti-defense/anti-hunter than anti-gunner.
 
USP45usp.

Sir, my dear sir. That is quite possibly the most elegant, eloquent and succinct summation of the eternal firebreak between heart and mind I have ever read - and gh0d knows I've read some brilliant ones.

We all have emotions. We all hurt. We all fear. We all have hatreds, and pains, and weariness of the loads that we carry. Death is light as a feather, and Duty heavy as the mountains, and all that malarky.

But some of us - a tiny sliver of the nearly-seven-billion - try to use our emotions in conjunction, and managed by, our minds. An even narrower sliver succeed.

Your words are those of that tiniest sliver, sir.

I salute you.
 
I think that extremists on both sides are a large part of the problem. Its kind of like the gay thing. Shouting about how extremely good or evil something is just annoys people. I guess it comes down to which extemist they hear first and how they react. Issues like these are always emotionally charged, understandably, but that is part of the problem.
 
I bet that if you could bell curve the people who are pro-gun, that 90% of them were raised in a gun friendly envriornment. My hunch is that guns are something you almost certainly have to have been raised with, (or have been raised by people who approve of guns) in order to be pro-gun yourself. Like being raised Baptist makes you far more likely to become a Baptist.
 
Probably true, although I'd like to think that some people have the strength of character to make up their own minds, regardless of their environment. I certainly grew up around people who did not like guns. I learned very quickly that its people, not inanimate objects, that you need to be wary of.
 
"Having said that, how do you convince an emotional soccer mom that guns are not bad when she has never touched a gun, was not raised in a gun friendly environment and watches TV every night and believes what's on the TV?"

I have not had the opportunity to do this myself, but I understand many shooters have had good luck by taking a soccer mom (or equivalent) out to the country with a 22, lots of ammo, and a few cans.

Tim
 
Bog: +1

Wayne is way above average.

Probably true, although I'd like to think that some people have the strength of character to make up their own minds, regardless of their environment. I certainly grew up around people who did not like guns. I learned very quickly that its people, not inanimate objects, that you need to be wary of.
Click to expand...

No doubt that there will be some who have come to be pro-gun based upon their own thinking, and logic. But I am guessing (see unscientific poll on this forum) that they comprise 20% or less of the total, where currently my hypothesis is being smashed to pieces :) .
 
I bet that if you could bell curve the people who are pro-gun, that 90% of them were raised in a gun friendly envriornment. My hunch is that guns are something you almost certainly have to have been raised with, (or have been raised by people who approve of guns) in order to be pro-gun yourself. Like being raised Baptist makes you far more likely to become a Baptist.
Click to expand...

Nope parents were very anti, got a rash of crap for having a bow as a kid. Would have never dreamed of owning a gun. :(
 
I'd like to think that some people have the strength of character to make up their own minds, regardless of their environment.
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem, people, especially American people, aren't thinking for them selves.

You would think, with the advent of the internet, computers being so inexpensive, and the simple ability to type, that people would actually become smarter, that they would actually take the time to do the research on their own.

But, alas, tis not so. People will watch 30min of their favorite liberal news channel and subscribe to a liberal magazine and will believe 100% of what they are reading, being told. There is no more questioning or personal investigation.

It's far easier to just believe what you are told then to take the time to do the research on your own.

I listen to Rush, Lars (Larson, for those that haven't heard him), Tony Snow, and I read Boortz, WND, and a host of other conservative internet sites and I don't agree with what they say all the time. If I think that they are wrong on an issue, I will do the research and I will email them with my findings, even if I was wrong.

I believe that the reason that people don't wish to think for themselves is due to they will be held accountable for their actions or words. If you just spew out what you've been told then the person feels justified in being able to blame others and not themselves. "But, I only did that or said that because that is what I was told so it's not my fault".

But it is their fault. It's their fault because they did not do the research themselves.

A great example, and yes I will pick on the gun owners here and elsewhere, are the questions that are asked about local/state laws in their state! With the internet (and you must have internet to log on here) every state has their laws, their statues, their local ordinances posted. All one does is go to their states page and then read.

Granted, sometimes it's difficult to read through the legalese so that is why there are sites, such as www.packing.org , that does a great job of summarizing.

Don't be lazy, do the research yourself and don't believe everything you hear/read at face value. That is what the anti's do and it shows when they start to spew out the "talking points" which makes them look like they are, stupid and followers, not intelligent and leaders.

If, after you've done your own research, and you still have questions, there are people here that would be more than happy to help you out but you'd get more replies if you start out with "....after doing the research on the (state) page and on various pages like packing.org, I find myself still in confusion on the laws relating to (insert question here)...".

Also (sorry for the long rant), when you do get a reply, check it out for yourself. Most to all members here will post their sources of information so that you can go and read it for yourself and in it's entirety. Maybe the member gave you a relevant snippet but forgot to add something that was very important which was further below.

That is the difference between them and us. We do our research, we know the laws, we know why we are fighting and what we are fighting for, the very specifics of the issue.

They don't and they don't want to know. To actually do the research would create doubt and this doubt would then cause them to stumble with their cause and would push them away from their newfound group/cause.

I forgot who said it but this quote comes to mind, "Ignorance is Bliss". Knowledge is dangerous to them and to their cause so they will not do the research, they will only follow what they are told.

/rant

Wayne
 
The anti-gun arguments have a specious logic to them. If we got rid of all guns then there wouldnt be any gun crime. That is true. If we got rid of all automobiles there wouldnt be any traffic accidents either. But getting to the next step of "the premise of that argument is just plain wrong" is the problem. You need a lot of studies at your fingertips to show that 1) guns do not cause crime, 2) getting rid of guns is like getting rid of booze--impossible 3) waiting periods, ballistic fingerprinting, banning certain calibers or brands of guns is worthless, 4) you are not more likely to be killed with your own gun, etc etc ad nauseum. And all of these have a specious logic attached to them. You could point to one or two cases where whatever it is would have made a difference. But the plural of anecdote is not evidence. And the evidence is that none of these arguments have held water for 50 years or more.
 
We have the ability to change minds with reason and logic. I have done it. An example is a rather liberal lady friend who lives in Macon GA. An extremely bright, educated woman who initially was rabidly anti-gun . Her occupation as a psychologist puts her in contact with rapists, woman beaters and pedophiles. Over time, with discussion, she began to soften a bit on the gun issue. For her birthday one year, I gave her an NRA membership and she explored the woman's programs offered. Well, to shorten this, she now is in full agreement that armed women are empowered women who need not be helpless victims of thugs.
 
As with all emotionally motivated decisions, you can reverse them with the logical presentation of equally emotional arguments.

IE: Soccer mom might have never considered what she would do if someone was coming after her or her kids. If the question is posed in a thoughtful way, people start to see the other side.


Most antigun people have not thought much about it. Most people haven't thought much about much of anything, for the most part. Presuming that people have made an in-depth assessment of their beliefs is foolish - they usually have not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top