Breakdown of Anti arguments and tactics

Anti-gun advocates and gun control pundits play a game of argument by fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

They find a position at the extremes (often to further a political or false agenda), then cherry pick whatever arguments and "hysterical falsehoods" they think they can get away. Thus is typical of the narcissistic personality.

But there are other specific mechanisms in play.
Delusional (magical) thinking, illogic, incomplete analysis, emotive (il)logic. For example 'I was in a situation where someone produced a firearm, and being insane, killed people around me. I am therefore against all firearms and I want those who carry them to be jailed, killed, neutralized and I want to do this by making a law that I can hide behind and not have to face the fact that insane people exist and there's really little defense'.

Perceived dilution of entitlement. LEOs are on record saying that when they came out of the academy with their firearm

Competition for dominance - Those in power, bullies, narcissists all think it is about them. They want to maintain their dominance and resent to the point of violence, their ability to control and assert their needs and rights over everyone else. The big bully fears the small person who might successfully resist their ability to steal your rights and individuality. The more capable you are, the less they are able to maintain the illusion of their own right, might and presence.

Logic tight compartments - They refuse to budge out of their own contrived dogma. 'Who needs a gun in a church'. You point out that churches are robbed, people are assaulted in parking lots and it has no effect on their opinion.

Deceit, deceptive commentary - these types have a free-floating list of pre-scripted 'arguments', false constructs, all designed to garner emotional support from those unwilling to think for themselves.

Projection, transference, reflection - They are full of rage, they want to be able to act on that, yet they fear consequences should their victim be able to fight back. Or they project this rage on others and fear the consequences if their reflection had deadly force capabilities.

Criminals, thugs - they fall into the bully compartment, opportunists who want to get their way and wish all resistance to be removed, and are in favor of laws they know won't affect them. Include politicians here.

Hysterical predictions - the prototypical ‘the streets will run with blood if we pass shall issue…’. Another argument by fallacy, straw-man arguments and so on.

This is by no means an exhaustive list but it hits some high points.

Finally, why do we try to understand the anti-arguments? I think if we get a handle on the popular methods they use we can be prepared to explain them away, but we already know that anti-s aren’t swayed by argument or logic, so one wonders if it’s a waste of time. Maybe it will help someone explain, convert, sway a family member and make them part of the SD team? If so it’s worth discussing.

Maverick9 said:

SNIP...
This is by no means an exhaustive list but it hits some high points.

Finally, why do we try to understand the anti-arguments? I think if we get a handle on the popular methods they use we can be prepared to explain them away, but we already know that anti-s aren’t swayed by argument or logic, so one wonders if it’s a waste of time. Maybe it will help someone explain, convert, sway a family member and make them part of the SD team? If so it’s worth discussing.

Click to expand...

I'd say it remains worthwhile to (try to) understand why antis think as they do so as to reach the ones that can be reached; the ones who've decided to permanently bury their heads in the sand and pretend crime doesn't occur to everyday people going about their everyday lives are lost, IMO.

In my experience, of the people that CAN have their eyes opened to the truth, some people are simply repeating what they've heard without actually giving it any though, others gave the anti-Rights rhetoric only modest thought before accepting it as their own without actually considering the facts and numbers (which are on our side). Then there are the ones that simply fear what they are ignorant of. If I may borrow some words (brownie points to whoever figures out who's words): Ignorance leads to fear. “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

For this last group of people, it is difficult to truly accept that they fear the object and its capabilities because they simply haven't handled a firearm (hence, ignorance), so they mask it with anger at what a small number of individuals have used them for, and use this as an excuse to justify their crusade against the only reasonable method of self-defense invented thus far*.

This is why the best way to reach on-the-fence antis just might be an hour of range time.


*Firearms are the only implement, and the use of firearms the only technique, that can be wielded in self-defense by an arthritic, octegenarian female as effectively as a youthful, strong 31 year old. Only recoil may invalidate this claim I am making, which is why I am still waiting for recoil-less phasers and/or plasma rifles to come into existence, as these would then be the most reasonable method of self defense to be invented.

When I think of anti's I will always think of herding cats on meth. And Leland Yee. And Feinstein with her carry permit. And Ted Kennedy with his body guard carrying a concealed machine pistol. And Steven Spielberg's machine gun collection, etc, etc.

OP +1 for taking the time. I think it's always worthwhile to understand, but maybe not always worthwhile to engage and explain, depending on the circumstances.

Has anyone done a similar writeup for those that are gun enthusiasts but fail to understand or respect the rights of others? I wonder if any of their (il)logic overlaps with that of straight antis. I suspect that it does. Perhaps a lot.

stealthyeliminator said:

OP +1 for taking the time. I think it's always worthwhile to understand, but maybe not always worthwhile to engage and explain, depending on the circumstances.

Has anyone done a similar writeup for those that are gun enthusiasts but fail to understand or respect the rights of others? I wonder if any of their (il)logic overlaps with that of straight antis. I suspect that it does. Perhaps a lot.

Click to expand...

What?!!?

You expect the antis to use logic, reason, and carefully considered analysis?

How droll.

stay safe.

What's somewhat amusing is that antis use the argument that it's very rare for the "use" of a handgun to stop a felony, attack or other dangerous situation as an argument against carrying.

In fact, I "use" carrying to:
1. Make me more peaceful, less aggressive, more likely to say 'sorry about that' in traffic;
2. Much less likely to engage in an altercation, road rage (which I don't do anyway);
3. Sleep peacefully, with the knowledge that I won't have to cower under the bed if there's a break in (I do that anyway - 'Dear, go see who's breaking in, I'll hide under the bed');
4. Not be afraid to go out at night, to go into a dark house, and all other silly fears as one gets on in years, and for that alone, which is an illusion, I like carrying;
5. Gives me an interesting and exciting hobby - perforating targets and sending my hard earned retirement $$ downrange into a dirt bank. (pun intended);
6. Make the decision to engage -mine- and not any aggressor, and I will choose 'not' if at all possible;
7. Afford me the chance to cogitate and become moderately aware of laws and rules of engagement and work scenarios and partner up.

Why wouldn't anyone want the above?

Maverick9 did a very good job of dissecting the antis' basis for argument. However, it can be boiled down to this one simple fact: The anti-gun crowd is not trying to appeal to any sort of logic, but rather to pure emotion ("Think of the children") to which far too many will respond.

I am, admittedly, rather cynical concerning the vast majority of my fellow Americans. They would much rather function on a purely emotional basis than expend the mental energy required to research and form an opinion based on fact. Emotion is much easier for them.

^^ Actually it's more like 'Think of the Children' with fingers in each ear going "'La-la-la-la-la' can't hear you!"

Anti vs "useful idiot"

Just try to remember that many who voice opposition to private gun ownership are not raving gun grabbers. Many are ill-informed or mis-informed. While they would doubtless find the term offensive, they fall into the category of being "useful idiots" to those who do know better and really do hate our RKBA.

There are those who are not gun enthusiasts and who might promote laws we find offensive simply because they don't know what current gun laws are. Of course we find background checks offensive and 4473s very concerning. And so the day may come when we have to have political battles with people who think these are good things. But in many cases we can remove from our opponents the voices of many who do not know current law and actually think there is a "gun show loophole" (as opposed to a private sale loophole).

We believe no permit should be needed to carry a gun for self defense. But there are many who will lose their motivation to engage in political battle over guns today once they realize what is required to get a permit and the very low rate of permit holders committing crimes. Explaining these things while not disclosing that we want to eliminate the need for permits at all is not at all supporting permits.

There are those who are not ready to talk about private ownership of machine guns, but who might be very receptive to understanding that a semi-auto AR or AK is actually less powerful than the typical deer rifle.

Of course, there are those who know the laws and technology, and simply hate guns and/or gun owners.

But, understanding our audience and differentiating between the true gun grabbers and those who are merely misinformed can make our conversations much more productive. Today, I don't have to convince the soccer mom to support my right to carry a concealed machine gun into schools without a permit. I just need to persuade her that voting for the pro-gun candidate really isn't going to result in a blood bath. Or, at the very least, that we have enough laws currently that she'd rather go shopping than provide any meaningful help to the anti-gun candidate.

Charles

There is no requirement to know anything about that which you vote for, or against.

The worst enemy of the 2A, and state analogs, is the gun owner who hunts and target shoots (to get that deer rifle ready for dear season)...FUDDS. They know that they will always be able to hunt and target shoot, elected liberals (D and R) have stated that they will not take away their deer rifle. I have many relatives who are FUDDS. These relatives believe that cops will protect them outside the home...because they are supposed to...no?

OC for ME said:

There is no requirement to know anything about that which you vote for, or against.

The worst enemy of the 2A, and state analogs, is the gun owner who hunts and target shoots (to get that deer rifle ready for dear season)...FUDDS. They know that they will always be able to hunt and target shoot, elected liberals (D and R) have stated that they will not take away their deer rifle. I have many relatives who are FUDDS. These relatives believe that cops will protect them outside the home...because they are supposed to...no?

Click to expand...

A Sheriff of a Texas border county apparently told citizens in his county to arm themselves because law enforcement would not be able to completely stop the large amount of border "spillover" violence that was occurring. Apparently some people actually got offended, as if the burden of their personal protection should not be their own responsibility. Blew my mind, being reminded that people actually think that way.

stealthyeliminator said:

A Sheriff of a Texas border county apparently told citizens in his county to arm themselves because law enforcement would not be able to completely stop the large amount of border "spillover" violence that was occurring. Apparently some people actually got offended, as if the burden of their personal protection should not be their own responsibility. Blew my mind, being reminded that people actually think that way.

Click to expand...

Same thing happened when Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke went on TV to say that people should take a safety class and arm themselves because police can't be everywhere protecting everyone (paraphrased.) The liberal mayor and MS media instantly had a cow, falling all over themselves to be the first to decry Clarke's words - and of course, using their own suggestive words like vigilante, blood in the streets, more guns are the LAST thing we need, etc.

It was simultaneously hilarious and disgusting... yet so very, very predictable!