Do most antis have reasons for being anti?

[Deanimator]

Their logic is fine, though we may not like it or agree with it. By and large they are not paranoid, stupid, sheeple, cowards, fascists or communists.

Their "logic", ISN'T. Almost to a man, I've seen nothing but:

1. UTTER technical ignorance regarding firearms
2. UTTER ignorance of CURRENT law
3. A shocking revulsion toward cause & effect
4. A total ignorance of history

Overall they do a better job stating their case than we do of ours, although they have their share of charlatans.

Then you need to hang out with a better, smarter class of gun owner and 2nd Amendment activist. I know pretty much ALL of their arguments, having spent the last 30+ years demolishing them wherever I've encountered them. I don't know how old you are, but I was the second FidoNet "point" in the Cleveland area in the mid '80s. I NEVER missed a chance to trash their "logic" in POLITICS and RTKBA. Of course FidoNet and later usenet gave me an opportunity to let THEM prove they were racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and the like. Of course it wasn't really THAT hard since I mostly used their OWN words. But then you may find NO hint of bigotry in comparing CCW advocates to, "Over-educated Jewish lawyers, trying to fight prayer in schools". Who knows, maybe like them, you find no evidence of racism in a White anti-gunner calling a Black person a "house ******" for failing to support gun control.

The anti-gunners are who they are, whether you like it.
AHSA is dead, whether you like it or not.

 

[Neverwinter]

Of course FidoNet and later usenet gave me an opportunity to let THEM prove they were racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and the like. Of course it wasn't really THAT hard since I mostly used their OWN words. But then you may find NO hint of bigotry in comparing CCW advocates to, "Over-educated Jewish lawyers, trying to fight prayer in schools". Who knows, maybe like them, you find no evidence of racism in a White anti-gunner calling a Black person a "house ******" for failing to support gun control.

This particular criticism seems rather hollow when we harbor our own bigots/ racists, some of whom have posted in this thread. A prime example would be a few pages back; someone boasted about converting a person from one party to another by informing her how her bigotry puts her more in line with another party.

Were anti-gun sentiments coupled with bigotry/racism consistently, or were these particular posters which were the loudest among the discussion? How prevalent was it? Whenever I see pro-gun people express bigotry, I generally dismiss them as being outliers. I also assume that their bigotry is incidental to their pro-gun position.

 

[Deanimator]

This particular criticism seems rather hollow when we harbor our own bigots/ racists, some of whom have posted in this thread. A prime example would be a few pages back; someone boasted about converting a person from one party to another by informing her how her bigotry puts her more in line with another party.

Were anti-gun sentiments coupled with bigotry/racism consistently, or were these particular posters which were the loudest among the discussion? How prevalent was it? Whenever I see pro-gun people express bigotry, I generally dismiss them as being outliers. I also assume that their bigotry is incidental to their pro-gun position.

The moderators of FidoNet FIREARMS and RTKBA and usenet rec.guns regularly ejected vocal White supremacists from those echoes and that newsgroup. I know, I was co-moderator of RTKBA.

The general membership of usenet talk.politics.guns regularly SAVAGED the imbeciles from the National Alliance who trolled for recruits there.

The anti-gunners in usenet talk.politics.guns were a BLOCK, minimizing racial slurs as "politically incorrect". Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists among them were regularly given cover. One of the biggest anti-gun voices (now on the Huffington Post) was on absolutely CORDIAL terms with the neo-Nazis of the National Alliance, describing them as "polite and honest".

One group rejected racism as a group. One group alternately denied, endorsed, and excused racism as a group.

Anti-gunners are who they are and no amount of denials will change that.

 

[rellascout]

Then you need to hang out with a better, smarter class of gun owner and 2nd Amendment activist. I know pretty much ALL of their arguments, having spent the last 30+ years demolishing them wherever I've encountered them. I don't know how old you are, but I was the second FidoNet "point" in the Cleveland area in the mid '80s. I NEVER missed a chance to trash their "logic" in POLITICS and RTKBA. Of course FidoNet and later usenet gave me an opportunity to let THEM prove they were racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and the like. Of course it wasn't really THAT hard since I mostly used their OWN words. But then you may find NO hint of bigotry in comparing CCW advocates to, "Over-educated Jewish lawyers, trying to fight prayer in schools". Who knows, maybe like them, you find no evidence of racism in a White anti-gunner calling a Black person a "house ******" for failing to support gun control.

Their "logic", ISN'T. Almost to a man, I've seen nothing but:
UTTER technical ignorance regarding firearms
UTTER ignorance of CURRENT law
A shocking revulsion toward cause & effect
A total ignorance of history

Maybe you need to associate with a smater class of non-gun owners and anti gun activist. LOL

You do realize you are demonstrating poor logic here? You are using a red herring to envoke a strawman. If you are going to claim the logical high ground maybe you should do it without employing logical fallacies. The reality is that there is poor logic and poor reasoning on both sides of the issue.

I am not sure why you feel the need to make blanket statements about those who do not share you beliefs. You have not offered a single piece of logically valid evidence to prove your arguement. Yet at the same time you claim "logical" superiority. It seems to me you have made declaritive statements, which are opinion based, as if they were fact. You are employing circular reasoning. You know you are right and they are wrong so as a result your logic is sound and theirs is falty. Yet you have not proven or demonstrated this to be logically true. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises instead your conclusion is your premise.

 

[Deanimator]

I am not sure why you feel the need to make blanket statements about those who do not share you beliefs.

Clearly theory always trumps observed reality... if you're an anti-gunner.

"What you experienced didn't really didn't happen because it makes me feel bad." is a REALLY lousy argument.

 

[happygeek]

Happygeek, do you have a can of gas at your nightstand at the ready in case of a home break in? I sure don't, I have a CZ Phantom because it will be a better instrument for stopping an attack than a knife or a gas can. What makes firearms fantastic defense tools can also make them very effective tools for commiting crimes...that is just fact.

I do have some around but since I'm not a mass murderer I don't plan on using them.

Handguns do help with armed robbery, if your victims have been disarmed by law and/or you have strenght in numbers. Being a halfway intelligent criminal seems to help more though, for example there was a guy on the History Channel who passed notes to bank tellers that said "I have a gun give me money". He got away with it for years before he was finally caught by handwriting analysis and DNA (the show never did say if he was in fact armed). On the other end of the spectrum you have The North Hollywood shootout where the criminals used several automatic long guns and wore body armor. Both died and got away with nothing.

 

[Nushif]

I love it when people on a firearm board call each other antis because one party doesn't agree with the other in how to explain other people's opinions and reasoning. Lemme dig up a quote that stuck with me here ...

It's not good enough to have for an "enemy" a misguided lady who took up the gun control cause because her life was devastated by a guy with a pistol. We have to create a mythic amoral Communist bent on dominating America.

 

[Justin]

Their "logic", ISN'T. Almost to a man, I've seen nothing but:

1. UTTER technical ignorance regarding firearms

I've done a fair amount of lurking at various sites and blogs either frequented or operated by anti-gun activists. In general, not only is there an almost uniform lack of the technical side of firearms, in a surprisingly large number of instances, people who are anti-gun are downright proud of the fact that they don't know anything about guns.

In general, they will decry those who attempt to educate them, and claim that technical understanding is not needed or even wanted when it comes to making public policy dealing with guns.

I've seen this attitude most prevalent in gun discussions on sites like Daily Kos, or on the blog written by Joan Peterson, a board member of the Brady Campaign.

2. UTTER ignorance of CURRENT law

I've also seen this as well. Most people who lean anti-gun simply assume that anyone can buy a gun at any time and for any reason. They have no understanding of the process needed to go about purchasing a legal firearm, nor the current laws that are on the books covering their usage.

On top of that, to an individual, they are nearly completely ignorant about how shooting ranges, clubs, and gun stores operate, generally assuming that such venues are free-for-alls that would make downtown Mogadishu look like candlelight vigil.

3. A shocking revulsion toward cause & effect

It's amazing how downright angry they get when you ask an anti-gun activist to detail how they would go about actually enforcing the laws they propose.

4. A total ignorance of history

This, indeed seems to play into it as well. Anti-gun activists will either ignore what's happened in the past, or hand-wave past historical experiences away with a "times are different now."

I've often seen this in relation to anti-gun advocates who push for registration of ammunition sales. When it's pointed out that ammo registration was a part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and that it had no impact whatsoever on crime, the historical record is simply ignored.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

I do have some around but since I'm not a mass murderer I don't plan on using them

LOL!! Phew! I guess the same could be said for your handgun using that logic.

You didn't answer the question though, why choose a firearm over a knife or gallon of gas for home protection?

 

[Deanimator]

I love it when people on a firearm board call each other antis because one party doesn't agree with the other in how to explain other people's opinions and reasoning. Lemme dig up a quote that stuck with me here ...

I love it when people spout anti-gun talking points, or defend those who do and claim to be "pro-gun".

It kind of reminds me of the week long series that NPR did on gun control in the '80s. Their "pro-gun" spokesman was a guy who only owned shotguns and admitted that if he were REALLY pressed to give THOSE up, he WOULD.

And people wonder why AHSA is deader than Charlie Sheen's last lonely brain cell...

 

[rellascout]

Clearly theory always trumps observed reality... if you're an anti-gunner.

"What you experienced didn't really didn't happen because it makes me feel bad." is a REALLY lousy argument.

Emperical data is a valid when used properly. When you use it in the proper way. It reminds me of the old Mark Twain quote.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

How am I an anti-gunner and where did I say something did not happen? You are now employing another logically fallacy. This one is called an ad hominem attack + a strawman. Instead of dealing with my statements and my arguement you attack me. You attempt to label me with something negative in order to discredit me and then misrepresent what I said in order to prove your right.

The reality is I am very pro gun. I have not said that your statements make me feel anything. I do not feel "bad" about this dicussion. As of yet I have not made an arguement. I have however attempted to illustrate the flaws in yours.

 

[Justin]

Maybe you need to associate with a smater class of non-gun owners and anti gun activist. LOL

I thought that this is what I was doing when following the social media feeds of the various anti-gun organizations and reading the blogs authored by their most ardent members and supporters.

For some examples, I'd point you to the Twitter feed of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but they recently had their account suspended by Twitter after outing the names and contact information of about a half-dozen pro-gun bloggers and then making veiled threats against them.

If there are blogs, forums, Facebook accounts, or Twitter feeds authored by thoughtful anti-gun activists, I'd certainly appreciate being provided with some links.

 

[Deanimator]

Emperical data is a valid when used properly. When you use it in the proper way. It reminds me of the old Mark Twain quote.

And "properly" is when it proves YOUR point?

 

[rellascout]

Justin,

Couldn't the same things be said about pro-gun websites and pro gunners.

My mother is law is pro gun. Owns guns believes in gun rights but I constantly have to correct her safety habits. I have to clean her guns because she does not know how to even field strip or properly oil them.

She does not know of or any of the details of current guns laws of the state she resides in.

She would not know what if any restrictions the Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed her and certainly does not understand its effect on crime.

She is a NRA member and votes pro gun.

Again all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.

 

[rellascout]

And "properly" is when it proves YOUR point?

Based on what criteria?

 

[Justin]

Couldn't the same things be said about pro-gun websites and pro gunners.

There's a reason why sites like THR exist. There are plenty of people who are pro-gun, but need proper education, but that's not the point of this thread, so I don't see how bringing it up in this context really even matters.

While there may be gun owners who are unsafe, uneducated, or both, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of pro-gun people are generally thoughtful and do their best to be well-informed.

I see a distinct lack of this sort of intellectual honesty and curiosity from anti-gun advocates, and that's not due to a lack of actually trying to find them.

 

[Deanimator]

Justin,

Couldn't the same things be said about pro-gun websites and pro gunners.

My mother is law is pro gun. Owns guns believes in gun rights but I constantly have to correct her safety habits. I have to clean her guns because she does not know how to even field strip or properly oil them.

She does not know of or any of the details of current guns laws of the state she resides in.

She would not know what if any restrictions the Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed her and certainly does not understand its effect on crime.

She is a NRA member and votes pro gun.

Again all poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.

And she's advocating restricting the rights of others, based on that ignorance?

No wait, she ISN'T.

Lots of people are utterly ignorant of the tenets of Islam. That harms nobody.

Advocating legislation depriving Muslims of their civil liberties, based on that ignorance HARMS them and everyone else.

Somebody else's ignorance doesn't harm me.
Somebody else's tangible efforts to deprive me of my rights, or active support for others who do, based on that ignorance HARMS me.

 

[rellascout]

I thought that this is what I was doing when following the social media feeds of the various anti-gun organizations and reading the blogs authored by their most ardent members and supporters.

For some examples, I'd point you to the Twitter feed of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but they recently had their account suspended by Twitter after outing the names and contact information of about a half-dozen pro-gun bloggers and then making veiled threats against them.

If there are blogs, forums, Facebook accounts, or Twitter feeds authored by thoughtful anti-gun activists, I'd certainly appreciate being provided with some links.

As this thread and others like it here sometimes demonstrate the most vocal are not the most informed, educated or the best representatives of a position.

 

[AlexanderA]

I've seen this attitude most prevalent in gun discussions on sites like Daily Kos

The commenters on Daily Kos seem to run about 50-50 pro- and anti-gun, with the trend being toward less anti-gun activism. But there's an overriding realization that gun control is a big losing issue in terms of liberal/progressive politics. The reason has to do with intensity of commitment -- anti-gun people are rarely single-issue voters, while pro-gun people often are. In most parts of the country, if a (progressive/liberal) politician takes a strong anti-gun stand, he won't gain many votes on the left (which would vote for him anyway), but he'll lose a lot more votes from gun-owning independents and, yes, liberals. This is exactly the calculation explaining why Obama has done zero on guns.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Another reason I like this site......civilized debate...most of the time. No one is convincing anyone of anything, but the tone of arguments are in line with THR philosophy, and that is refreshing.

 

[Deanimator]

I thought that this is what I was doing when following the social media feeds of the various anti-gun organizations and reading the blogs authored by their most ardent members and supporters.

For some examples, I'd point you to the Twitter feed of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but they recently had their account suspended by Twitter after outing the names and contact information of about a half-dozen pro-gun bloggers and then making veiled threats against them.

If there are blogs, forums, Facebook accounts, or Twitter feeds authored by thoughtful anti-gun activists, I'd certainly appreciate being provided with some links.

As a general rule, forums dedicated to gun control advocacy do NOT permit contrary viewpoints. This is ESPECIALLY so of forums run by advocacy organizations.

Contrast this with forums like this one. Anti-gunners here (and their fellow travelers) are NEVER expelled for expressing a contrary viewpoint, but for intentionally defying the terms of service... which they usually do when people refute everything they say in detail.

But no doubt someone will chime in to deny the undeniable...

 

[Justin]

As this thread and others like it here sometimes demonstrate the most vocal are not the most informed, educated or the best representatives of a position.

If you're so concerned with the intellectual state of most pro-gun folks, perhaps you ought undertake an effort to educate them rather than condescending to them all the time.

Also, there's a world of difference between ignorance spouted by random members of an online message board and ignorance spouted by the people chosen to be the public face of various national-level anti-gun activist groups.

The commenters on Daily Kos seem to run about 50-50 pro- and anti-gun, with the trend being toward less anti-gun activism.

I've seen the pro-gun folks on DK making their points, and my hat is definitely off to them as their chosen undertaking is a tremendous challenge.

 

[Nushif]

As a general rule, forums dedicated to gun control advocacy do NOT permit contrary viewpoints.

Oooh, this triggered a thought ...

This forum isn't comparable to one of those!

The forum is specifically there at least as far as I can see in daily use to provide a discussion about guns, reloading, the finer points of guns, more guns, gun ownership and activism.
This isn't a forum dedicated to activism. It has a section, but it's not dedicated to activism.

A fairer comparison would be to find a forum, twitter feed or whatever that is actually about pro gun activism and then compare it to an anti activism media outlet.
I predict the two will be largely the same.

 

[Nushif]

Also, there's a world of difference between ignorance spouted by random members of an online message board and ignorance spouted by the people chosen to be the public face of various national-level anti-gun activist groups.

Again something that tipped off a thought ... we can't really be sure whether the Brady Campaign and stuff like that really *are* chosen to be the public face. I know a *lot* of conservatives who for instance do not chose Glen Beck, I know a lot of socialists who do not chose the current socialist party, and I know a lot of gun owners who never chose Ted Nugent.

I imagine the anti side here has just as many political rifts as we do. And it arguably has just as many extremists.

 

[Justin]

A fairer comparison would be to find a forum, twitter feed or whatever that is actually about pro gun activism and then compare it to an anti activism media outlet.
I predict the two will be largely the same.

You would be tremendously mistaken.

Of the anti-gun blogs that do exist, the vast majority of them do not allow comments at all.

Of those that do, they're more heavily regulated than any other online venue I've ever seen, certainly more so than comparable pro-gun blogs and social media venues.

Again something that tipped off a thought ... we can't really be sure whether the Brady Campaign and stuff like that really *are* chosen to be the public face. I know a *lot* of conservatives who for instance do not chose Glen Beck, I know a lot of Communists who do not chose Marx, and I know a lot of gun owners who never chose Ted Nugent.
I imagine the anti side here has just as many political rifts as we do.

If that's the case, you'd see them denouncing the Brady Campaign/VPC/CSGV most vociferously in many online venues.