Why One Influential Gun Controller Acts

Craig_VA said:

there was no use of any facts or logic in the decision, it was all about his emotional state. Further, the actions he took were driven entirely by the well-worn mantra, "someone should do something," without considering that it is essential to do something that will actually work.
[/MEDIA]

Click to expand...

It seems to me IMHO that one side tends to rule by emotion (or lets their emotion rule them) while the other side is ridiculed for pointing out that the actions taken and laws proposed (and sometimes enacted) would have done nothing to prevent the situations they are intended to remedy. If something needs to be done, why not enforce what's already on the books (cough: Parkland).

Dicks also sold the shotgun to the gunman who shot up New River Community College. In fact, the Dicks was in the same mall as the college satellite location that was shot up.

I agree these two don’t care about facts. They care about their pushing their beliefs.

Now I’ll give Stack credit for growing a business. But like many on the left that once they are successful, he’s forgot what got him there. In his case, it was hunters and sportsmen and women. If he thinks soccer moms and such are his core, then he’s returning to the business’ core and two stores (or less).

Personally I’m not sure how we fight folks like this that have lots of money and influence.

I don't need to watch any video to know what I would say if I ever met stack in person.

Bill

BCR#1 said:

I don't need to watch any video to know what I would say if I ever met stack in person.

Bill

Click to expand...

Why do I get the impression it would be similar to what I’d say.

Craig_VA said:

One very high visibility gun controller talked about why he took action against firearms. The short summary of his answer:
1. Strong emotion
2. The mantra, "Somebody must do something."

Click to expand...

Probably 99% of gun controllers, both the rank and file and the leadership, are motivated in this way. The remaining 1% have nefarious motives (such as disarming their political opponents), or are politicians responding to their constituents.

Also, don't overlook peer pressure. In some liberal enclaves, opposition to guns is a litmus test, that marks people as belonging to their particular ideological "tribe." So some people espouse gun control without really caring about the guns themselves. What they're doing is setting themselves apart from gun owners, who they see as their social enemies.

It's a mistake to ascribe conspiratorial motives to gun controllers, such as by saying that they are a vanguard in imposing a tyranny. These people are our neighbors.

SharpDog said:

It seems to me IMHO that one side tends to rule by emotion (or lets their emotion rule them) while the other side is ridiculed for pointing out that the actions taken and laws proposed (and sometimes enacted) would have done nothing to prevent the situations they are intended to remedy.

Click to expand...

Emotion is stronger than reason. That's because emotions are regulated by the most primitive, and basic, part of the human brain.

Arguing against an emotional gun controller using reason is fruitless. These two things -- emotion and reason -- operate on entirely different planes. It's like trying to refute religion by using science. It can't be done. These are two different universes.

The conclusion, then, is that pro-gun appeals must be just as emotionally-based as the antigun appeals. An example of that would be the testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost her parents in the Luby's Cafeteria shooting in 1991, and had been helpless to defend them because she wasn't allowed to carry her licensed handgun into the restaurant. Powerful stuff.

Yes, also the recent case where a 15-year-old boy saved himself and his 11-year-old sister from armed home invaders, using the family's AR-15.