NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Information Arsenal => Topic started by: JTH on December 15, 2013, 12:08:35 AM
-
[sigh] Couldn't take it anymore. I've actually been sitting on variations of this post for several weeks now, but today's been the last straw.
http://precisionresponse.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/i-need-a-gun-to-feel-like-a-man/ (http://precisionresponse.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/i-need-a-gun-to-feel-like-a-man/)
What is it about firearms that makes ignorant people automatically assume lots of ridiculous things about other people?
-
I love it. Well written and sums up my thoughts. These people almost immediately stop discussing the issue/topic and immediately jump to discussing me(how I'm, paranoid, afraid, etc). Did your friend like the article?
-
I'd be willing to bet good money that your friend didn't even read the whole of your initial response.
That seems to be the tactic these days- (It's a sad side affect of social media) any correspondence that takes more than 30 seconds of focused attention is simply skimmed over at best, if even read at all.
Most likely all your friend saw was "I carry a gun and I have a bunch FACT to back up my decision." That 4 letter 'F' word is where things took a turn to the south. It scares the daylights out of the blissfully ignorant. It is at this point that the basic life decision of Fight or Flight came into play, and since the urge to always have the last word is overbearing and it would be admitting defeat to just let it go, they chose to Fight with only weapon they had- the personal attack on your character and manhood. We can name this response the classic PW: "I know you are, but what am I? "
I too, recently got into a discussion (This one on the $15 minimum wage for fast food workers) The debate quickly took a sour turn due to facts on my side being rebutted with mostly emotional feelings from the other side. As the other side is young and fairly new to America, but I will admit, an otherwise intelligent young lady, time and time again tried to steer her back to the few factual responses she had and show her how she actually agreed with me but her hereditary hardheadedness (Latino woman ;) ) refused to let her.
Her last response was to attack my (totally unrelated) personal beliefs in our Second Amendment Rights and our beloved firearms. I decided to allow the discussion to end right there with a "You really wanna go there?" As coworkers, I felt it would make for some pretty hostile work environment if we entered into THAT field of battle- it would be a debating manslaughter.
-
Very good response jt.
-
Very well written response JT. As a woman who rarely leaves her house without a firearm (sometimes 2) as well as an edc knife - I am approached with this type of question often. I look at it much the same as you do. I wear my seatbelt, take my vitamins, exercise. Why would I not take precautions to protect myself should the need ever arise? Its like an insurance policy. We insure everything else in our lives. Why not our safety?
I do however feel that practicing situational awareness is a key factor in carrying as well. I generally get the question "What are you afraid of?" to which I answer "Nothing and nobody." Don't get me wrong - Im not invincible, nor am I Rambo but if I ever need to protect myself or my family I will do everything in my power to do so. Compensating? I think not.
-
Wiki
Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1900s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.
Although rooted in early developmental stages, and classed by Vaillant as an immature defence, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.
-
Very well written response JT. As a woman who rarely leaves her house without a firearm (sometimes 2) as well as an edc knife - I am approached with this type of question often. I look at it much the same as you do. I wear my seatbelt, take my vitamins, exercise. Why would I not take precautions to protect myself should the need ever arise? Its like an insurance policy. We insure everything else in our lives. Why not our safety?
I do however feel that practicing situational awareness is a key factor in carrying as well. I generally get the question "What are you afraid of?" to which I answer "Nothing and nobody." Don't get me wrong - Im not invincible, nor am I Rambo but if I ever need to protect myself or my family I will do everything in my power to do so. Compensating? I think not.
Good points. I have the same mindset - I buckle my seatbelt when running down to the grocery store 3 blocks away. I probably won't get in an accident, but it's so easy to take that precaution that there's no reason not to. I carry for the same reason.
Almost every time I've debated gun control with an antigun person it has devolved into them personally attacking me, after they're unable to refute the facts.
-
very nice!
-
I Corinthians 14:38 ....applies to women too
-
Expect personal attacks if you're engaged in a 2A debate with a devout anti. Be professional and be nice.
Then come back here for moral support. :)
-
Another well written blog, as always.
Sadly, firearms usage and ownership is truly a hot button issue. MSM definitely hates guns and waste no time trying to report anything accurately about them. Kinda have to expect knee jerk responses instead of reasoning.
-
I've asked many of the same questions myself, e.g. why would someone thing that I'm compensating for something by carrying a gun, but I don't find it fruitful to engage in the same "scaredy cat" name calling ....
Is it that scary to actually look at the facts?
Rather, I prefer to simply ask them to stop the name-calling and abandon the logical fallacies and explain their point of view. Many times I've found that their point of view is purely emotional and not based on facts, but I try to avoid resorting to their same tactics.
-
It's difficult to reason with someone who hasn't arrived at their opinion by reason.
-
Solid Piece Sir. It may, perhaps, find it's way onto the ole Facebook today.
-
Ran across this blog post which pretty much has the same conclusions.
But YOU SAID THIS!!! Or why arguing with crazy people is pointless.
http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/but-you-said-this-or-why-arguing-with.html (http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/but-you-said-this-or-why-arguing-with.html)
-
Ran across this blog post which pretty much has the same conclusions.
http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/but-you-said-this-or-why-arguing-with.html (http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/but-you-said-this-or-why-arguing-with.html)
This is a BRILLIANT quote:
"If someone really wants to have a calm, rational, discussion about the place of guns in society, and they are calm and rational then by the time the conversation is over they will be on our side. Our side has all the calm, rational facts. The other side dances in the blood of victims and chants their incantations to create more victims by nothing more than emotional appeal to disarm more people as if dehorning the rams will somehow protect the sheep from wolves."
Seriously. And I'm going back to my blog and linking to that post, because there's some good stuff there. Particularly that last paragraph.
-
To follow that up----out of the whole situation, pretty much just two things REALLY get me. And oddly enough, neither one is based on the fact that other people have opinions that differ from mine.
1) The first is behavior-related. The minute I disagree with their opinion, suddenly I'm a terrible baby-killer who loves murder, and they have no issues with vilifying me using terms and descriptives that are so far past rude and obnoxious that it is astonishing---and yet, they accuse ME of being rude, mean, and a bully, and so on. (Seriously, I discussed a firearms topic with someone once, keeping strictly to facts and statistics, and her MOTHER publicly accused me of bullying her adult daughter. Bullying? Seriously?)
2) Facts mean nothing. And statistics ONLY mean something if they support their side---no matter how much the statistic itself is irrelevant, whether or not it is contrived, or whether or not it actually is germane to the discussion.
Example: "We have a gun-death rate of 10.3 per 100,000, which is in the top eight out of [a list of countries]. That puts us up there with El Salvador! We need to ban guns!"
My response: "El Salvador has a rate of 44/100,000, 43/44 of which are due to homicides. We have a rate of 10.3/100,000, only 1/3 of which are due to homicides. And we have literally 750 times as many guns in private hands as El Salvador has, AND in El Salvador the restrictions on private gun ownership are extremely strict. You are saying that we are like a country that has a murder rate that is over 12 times ours with a gun ownership rate that is about 1/750th of ours? And you want to implement gun controls in the U.S. like El Salvador already has?"
The response: "Scared Thomas? Take your precious guns and move to El Salvador."
....seriously, that was the response. What the heck?
I realize that when discussing any topic with someone who has an emotional position, and has an emotional attachment to that emotional position, you have to gently point out things so they end up convincing themselves, making them come up with questions that cause them to start looking at facts instead of fabrications. But when ANY commentary by myself disagreeing with emotional statistically-incorrect diatribes is greeted with insults and "you don't care about the children," it makes it difficult.
I asked on my Facebook awhile back: "So, for those who believe that more gun control would make a difference to crime and violence in the U.S.---what would it take for you to change your mind? What level of factually-supporting research would make a difference to your opinion?"----when I asked this, the silence was overwhelming.
(Of course, I've also had a discussion where the other person admitted that facts and statistics would not ever cause her to change her mind. Well, that's useful to know.)
For some people, no amount of reality is going to change their mind. Other than by ignoring them (which is a bad idea, because their stridency and loudmouth-ed-ness will be heard by many others, perhaps swaying their opinion), how do you deal with them?
I try to stick to facts and statistics that I can back up---not because I expect to change their minds, but because the other people who are reading the discussion may perhaps start looking at the facts, and it may help change their minds.
But boy, it is difficult to keep calm when someone responds to facts and statistics with the tried-and-true "progressive" response of "Compensating much?"
[sigh]
-
Is it that scary to actually look at the facts?
Rather, I prefer to simply ask them to stop the name-calling and abandon the logical fallacies and explain their point of view. Many times I've found that their point of view is purely emotional and not based on facts, but I try to avoid resorting to their same tactics.
Makes sense.
But then again, I don't ask that question to their face, because while it IS a germane question (because if their response IS emotional, there is actually a good likelihood that it IS scary to them to look at the facts) attempting to convince someone who is having an emotional response by attacking their emotions doesn't work, and is actively detrimental.
So, I agree----but since I don't do that ("engage in the same "scaredy cat" name calling ....") I'm not worried about it making them more upset.
That being said---it really IS a good question. Because when someone is having a strong emotional response to something, often it really IS scary for them to attempt to think in any other fashion, and often any attempt by someone else to convince them in a manner that conflicts with their opinion IS actually very frightening to them, and they will react extremely emotionally.
An important question really is: Why is it so scary for this person? For this individual, why is there such an emotional reaction? Is it because thinking differently means they have to admit to themselves that violence exists? That humans beings perform it? That it can happen, and does happen, sometimes randomly? (Mostly not, really, but sometimes.) That they are defenseless against violence like this because they have not ever thought about it? What aspect is causing the emotional response?
(That last point, by the way, tends to be an underlying emotional theme with many people. They don't want to admit that violence is human-based, because then it could happen to them, but they have no defense against it, so they are vulnerable, but that is frightening, so they simply say that violence is object-based and if you just stay away from those objects or we can do away with those objects you'll be fine.)
Many people seem to think that if we can just get people away from guns, deaths won't occur. This of course ignores all prior research regarding violence--but many people really do hold emotionally to the idea that violence is object-based, and if we can reduce or remove those objects, violence won't happen.
All evidence and history to the contrary.
When discussing this topic with someone, finding what aspect of it is the frightening part that drives their opinion, and using _other_ avenues to discuss the topic often ends up making them start thinking without triggering that (often verbally violent) emotional response. (And if you hit that trigger, the discussion is over, because bringing up any aspect of the topic after that will garner that same response.)
So---while I don't ask them directly "why are you so scared by this" it is certainly true that I often attempt to find out what part of the topic causes them to be emotional, so that the discussion can be had via other avenues of thought.
All of the above translates to "I don't engage in name-calling, because it isn't productive. That doesn't mean the question itself, and its answer, isn't important."
-
My liberal sister-in-law posted some gun control BS yesterday on Facebook. A few people responded on that side with emotional agreement. Then a couple people posted pro-gun facts. The response was personal attacks on the pro-gunners. My s-i-l never commented once on the post. I responded respectfully that Good guys with guns stop evil guys and factual data. Some wacko jumped in on his wife's account and told everyone to stop attacking my s-i-l.
She responded that she never meant to stir debate. That is true, she thought everyone would agree with her. I was happy that the pro side stayed professional and non-personal. No minds were changed but it gave me something to chuckle about all day.
-
Rather, I prefer to simply ask them to stop the name-calling and abandon the logical fallacies and explain their point of view. Many times I've found that their point of view is purely emotional and not based on facts, but I try to avoid resorting to their same tactics.
Makes sense.
But then again, I don't ask that question to their face, because while it IS a germane question (because if their response IS emotional, there is actually a good likelihood that it IS scary to them to look at the facts) attempting to convince someone who is having an emotional response by attacking their emotions doesn't work, and is actively detrimental.
I only mentioned it because you did it in your article which is, of course, available for the public to read.
The question, "Why are you afraid," makes the assumption that the individual being questioned is afraid. And, it's as much in how the question is asked as it is in asking the question.
-
My liberal sister-in-law posted some gun control BS yesterday on Facebook. A few people responded on that side with emotional agreement. Then a couple people posted pro-gun facts. The response was personal attacks on the pro-gunners. My s-i-l never commented once on the post. I responded respectfully that Good guys with guns stop evil guys and factual data. Some wacko jumped in on his wife's account and told everyone to stop attacking my s-i-l.
Isn't that most gun control arguments in a nutshell?
1) Statement of emotionally-chosen factoid supporting gun control.
2) Expectation of agreement.
3) Statement of pro-self-defense facts conflicting with emotionally-chosen factoid.
4) Personal attacks on people providing pro-self-defense facts.
5) Re-statement of pro-self-defense facts and requests for discussion.
6) Call for pro-self-defense folks to quit attacking or bullying instigator of discussion.
No actual discussion of facts, unless more gun control factoids (normally either incorrect, out-of-context, or irrelevant to the argument at hand) are said as "rebuttal."
...oh, I forgot: Normally in #6, there are also claims that pro-self-defense folks are angry, scared, or compensating.
Next time everyone reads a discussion like this, see if you can count off points 1-6.
-
Isn't that most gun control arguments in a nutshell?
Yes, in my experience. Sad thing is many people I know that have guns use this method in discussing personal defense weapons. They think that if I have a gun on me that I will not be able to control the temptation to kill someone. Nevermind the fact that I drive a 27 ton bomb every day.
-
"Liberalism is a mental illness". - Michael Savage
-
The six steps shown are pretty accurate, besides the psychological reasons that you have covered very well I think there is one other piece that has been missing from the why. For the last 5 decades that is how the Liberals have been trained, if not on purpose through being involved/on the sidelines, to handle this.
The Liberal/Progressive/whatever movements have all been using the tactics instituted by Saul Alinsky in his Rules For Radicals. Rule number 5 - Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
I am not saying that an individual is purposely using Ridicule, but because of how prevalent its use has been for the last 50+ years that people are inclined to use it when their position of emotional attachment has been challenged.
So how do we get out of the 6 step loop? Combating ridicule with ridicule quickly denigrates the debate into nothing more than name calling. The most effective counter's are to point out that ridicule is the refuge of the desperate and uninformed. Then either follow it up with a request for an apology for the attack (friendly method), or follow up with 3 more fact-based points that tie directly to your point. Finish with the point that if someone wants to engage in ridicule instead of discussion then they aren't in the right place. Whatever you do, remember the following: DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. That's what they are aiming for - it takes you off your game. Remember it's a tactic, and frequently one of desperation or displaying a lack of a cogent argument. It's often a signpost to drive your point home hard and fast with facts as quickly as possible.
-
I don't need a gun to feel like a man. That's why I drive a pickup truck and own power tools.
-
I don't think I need a gun to feel like a man...however, when my wife got a 9mm I was strangely compelled to run out and buy a .45 :P
-
I need a gun to not feel like a panty waist, liberal, sissy, victim...
Plus I like them.
Greg58
-
I need a gun because it has become all too obvious in this day and age that the good old American work ethic hasn't been taken to heart by enough people. It isn't enough that those who would take my goods would do so and depart, too often they want to enjoy some sadistic pleasure as part of the process. That's why I need the gun!!
-
The liberal argument of attacking a gun owner's self-reliance belies what is essentially their envy of people who can cope with the world around them.
To quote the late, great Col. Jeff Cooper....
... "The people who would deprive us of our essential liberty are still there, and their amazing efforts to destroy the God-given rights of free men show no signs of diminishing. We know how hard and continuously these people keep up their fight to disarm us. The important question is why they fight us. Much as they may wish to use crime as their target, it is quite clear to them and as to us that crime is not the problem. Where the citizen is armed, crime goes down. All they have to do is look. Nor is safety an adequate argument for disarmament. Life is unsafe by nature, and mortal accidents occur regardless of the existence or absence of personal arms. I have thought about this at length, and I am puzzled to discover that the subject of the motivation of those who would confound our liberty is not broadly discussed. Personally I think the motive of those other people is simply envy. Envy, not money, is the root of all evil, and those who cannot cope envy those who can. Living in a free country - the last on Earth - I have been armed one way or another for most of my life. And though I have lived a fairly adventurous life, I have never yet had to shoot to save my life, or that of a dear one, in a purely civil encounter. But the fact that I have been able to and ready to has forestalled conflict on several occasions. This has afforded me great satisfaction, but it seems to annoy certain people who envy me my peace of mind. This product, peace of mind, is what I have provided for so many years at Gunsite, and the fact that it can be so provided is apparently what arouses the envy of the non-coper. I do not believe that I am exactly 'preaching to the choir' when I state this position, because I do not see that either our friends or our enemies are prepared to understand that envy is the issue."
... and Cooper again ...
... "Could it be that the essence of liberalism is fear? It occurs to us that those who are considered 'conservative' tend to be people who can cope with circumstances, while those who cannot cope tend to be of the 'liberal' persuasion. The pious man properly fears God, but on the political scene the winner fears only the state. It may be that the loser looks to the state for protection against the winner, and only eventually discovers that he has identified the wrong enemy."
-
Isn't that most gun control arguments in a nutshell?
1) Statement of emotionally-chosen factoid supporting gun control.
2) Expectation of agreement.
3) Statement of pro-self-defense facts conflicting with emotionally-chosen factoid.
4) Personal attacks on people providing pro-self-defense facts.
5) Re-statement of pro-self-defense facts and requests for discussion.
6) Call for pro-self-defense folks to quit attacking or bullying instigator of discussion.
No actual discussion of facts, unless more gun control factoids (normally either incorrect, out-of-context, or irrelevant to the argument at hand) are said as "rebuttal."
...oh, I forgot: Normally in #6, there are also claims that pro-self-defense folks are angry, scared, or compensating.
Next time everyone reads a discussion like this, see if you can count off points 1-6.
Get that bottle of your favorite antacid and maybe a bucket for those of you with weak stomaches, this might be OFN for some but I found it ... interesting.
The Official Liberal Anti-Gun Playbook (PDF warning)
http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...uide-pdf-1.pdf (http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...uide-pdf-1.pdf)
-
Most of you have probably seen these, but totally reminded of this thread:
http://youtu.be/Z-oMIeFwwvA (http://youtu.be/Z-oMIeFwwvA)
-
I found this when I was surfing a couple of weeks ago, thought you folks might find it informative.
The Liberal Anti-Gun Playbook
http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...uide-pdf-1.pdf (http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...uide-pdf-1.pdf)
Have a trash can nearby when reading, this is yoiur only warning!
Ron