Is it actual ignorance or malicious deceit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's both. I think that people that are found to be doing so with malicious intent, that full well know the facts and still push their agendas anyways, I think they need to be convicted of treason or something and put in jail for life. It's premeditated crime really, usurpation of our constitutional rights. Some politicians do it because they know there are lots of voters out there that are clueless, emotional, and that their anti-gun policies will get their votes. Others do it because they are on a power trip, want to control people, and the idea of a strong and self sufficient individual is very threatening to them or they just think the average person is far too stupid to be trusted. I'm sure there are a million other reasons but, the point is there are plenty of politicians out there that full well know the facts. One other issue is there are probably plenty of people out there that think they know the facts, however their source of info is flawed such as the VPC or any other number of groups. Obviously there is no real truth or actual fact to back up basically any supposed facts or claims that most of those groups have, so usually they are contortions of the truth or flat out lies. If stated in a believable manner, I'm sure plenty of people take those supposed "facts" at face value. These days it seems fewer and fewer people really research much past the first layer of info to get to the real truth.
 
Lonestar49 said:
let alone report a twin-engine plane crashed when it shows it was a jet..

Uh, there's tons of twin engine aircraft out there powered by turbofans, ya know... Those are "jets". Ever seen a Citation, Gulfstream, etc?
 
Shadow wrote:

One other issue is there are probably plenty of people out there that think they know the facts, however their source of info is flawed such as the VPC or any other number of groups. Obviously there is no real truth or actual fact to back up basically any supposed facts or claims that most of those groups have, so usually they are contortions of the truth or flat out lies. If stated in a believable manner, I'm sure plenty of people take those supposed "facts" at face value. These days it seems fewer and fewer people really research much past the first layer of info to get to the real truth.

I agree with you on the part of fewer people actually researching further, but I remember when I first came across the Kellerman Study crap in a political cartoon and it took about 5 minutes of searching on the internet to learn how he came up with the figure that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill you or a loved one than actually be used in self defense. His study and results have been debunked numerous times and it took 5 minutes for me to get a good explanation as to how he "arrived" at his conclusion. It really isn't that difficult to be credible, so why can't the anti's at least figure out if they have accurate info before just throwing it out there.

Laziness, fear, an agenda to drive, who knows???
 
1) They want the facts to be a certain way, believe the facts are the way they want them to be, and cannot fathom being wrong.

2) They don't care what the facts are - they just want to get their way, which may be either to get votes or abuse power over others (a twisted benevolent dictatorship/paternalism).
 
SOme peopple will only believe the versions of the facts that suit their agendas.

I tried to explain to a woman once that the round used by an AK-47 is not nearly as powerful as most deer hunting rounds used in the U.S. It was like talking to a brick wall. She adamantly took the stance that SHE KNEW what the facts were and that I was just saying what the NRA wanted me to say.

Its very hard to argue with self-righteous ignorance.
 
I tried to explain to a woman once that the round used by an AK-47 is not nearly as powerful as most deer hunting rounds used in the U.S.

Yeah, but it's so eeeviiilll looking. God, I sure do love mine!
 
It is very complex, I started typing it up, but felt I would have to go into too many side topics to explain the various factions and what shapes and motivates them.

Simply put it is a mixture of both done for the benefit of different interests, some of which use or exploit eachother for the common goal, but are motivated for different reasons.
 
In the case of the rank and file Joe & Jane Sixpack, it is just ignorance. In the case of the politicians who lead them, it is malicious deceit, taking advantage of said ignorance of their constituents for political gain. Except for perhaps a few low-level state and local politicians who fall in the ignorant category.
 
PremiumSauces summed it up fairly well. However the politicans are not the only ones on that side. Many powerful people in positions of economic control and authority (and would not be effected by anti legislation as they will have private security anyways) do not want the power in the hands of the average peon either. That makes things less predictable and harder to manipulate.
That is not to say they are all sinister, just merely looking out for thier own best interest which in the case of firearms often conflicts with the interests of freedom and society.

They can exploit the ignorant for that common goal. So they often work together, but it is the ignorant that you see represented at the ground level.
 
I've been debating anti-gunners, first in FidoNet then in usenet, since 1986. In my entire 50 years of life, the only more dishonest group of people I've ever encountered were Holocaust deniers, and they were only marginally more dishonest than anti-gunners.

In my experience, anti-gunners will tell virtually ANY lie, no matter how astonishingly stupid and obvious if they think their audience is gullible enough to believe it.

By my observation, the anti-gun and Holocaust denial movements are carbon copies of each other. They both consist of a small hardcore of pathological liars at the top, making a living off of the great mass of gullible dupes of the rank and file. Ignorance, prejudice and pure malice are their tools.

You'll never educate a hardcore anti-gunner or Holocaust denier. But if you don't refute them, they trumpet the silence as agreement. What you CAN do is show them up for the liars and con artists they are.
 
I've been debating anti-gunners, first in FidoNet then in usenet, since 1986. In my entire 50 years of life, the only more dishonest group of people I've ever encountered were Holocaust deniers, and they were only marginally more dishonest than anti-gunners.

In my experience, anti-gunners will tell virtually ANY lie, no matter how astonishingly stupid and obvious if they think their audience is gullible enough to believe it.

By my observation, the anti-gun and Holocaust denial movements are carbon copies of each other. They both consist of a small hardcore of pathological liars at the top, making a living off of the great mass of gullible dupes of the rank and file. Ignorance, prejudice and pure malice are their tools.

You'll never educate a hardcore anti-gunner or Holocaust denier. But if you don't refute them, they trumpet the silence as agreement. What you CAN do is show them up for the liars and con artists they are.

Most of these Holocaust deniers are also the extreme, almost chilling fascist type characters. They also deny that the Japanese invaded China and killed 30 million people. They would most likely have a shrine at home dedicated to Hideki Tojo and Adolf Hitler, with Japanese naval flag and samurai swords mounted in bushido fashion.

One month ago, in the Chinese city of Shenyang, there was a pop singer who came up to the stage during a concert wearing a costume that was colorfully decorated with the Japanese Rising Sun, and yelling "banzai!". Only two seconds later, he was punched in the face by a bouncer so hard his jaw was dislocated. The popsinger later apologized and said that he meant it as a joke, but that sh*t isn't tolerated at all over here.
 
A terrible combination

As was just posted, I think it's combination of malicious deceit on the part of leaders and willful ignorance on the part of followers. Too many people feel that these issues just don't apply to them and are more interested in the local sports scene or other hobbies. Theses issues are deep and fundamental regarding freedom, responsibility, and human nature,way heavier than who's pitching or who the next draft pick should be. It takes too much work to really think about these problems. I still wonder how these leaders live with themselves when all they say on the subjects of crime, firearms, and the human behavior are lies and distortions.
 
One month ago, in the Chinese city of Shenyang, there was a pop singer who came up to the stage during a concert wearing a costume that was colorfully decorated with the Japanese Rising Sun, and yelling "banzai!". Only two seconds later, he was punched in the face by a bouncer so hard his jaw was dislocated. The popsinger later apologized and said that he meant it as a joke, but that sh*t isn't tolerated at all over here.
__________________

Free speech?
 
Free speech?

Denying the Holocaust or Japanese war crimes is not free speech, it's criminal speech. In China, it is not a crime to deny Japanese war crimes at all. The government does not need to make it a crime. Do you know why? Because all one has to do is say is the "Japanese never invaded China or killed anyone", and in the next second, every single person in the street, bus, train, or wherever, would come over and beat the living sh*t out of that person.
 
I think I can sum it up like this:

Notions of integrity, and even simple truth or falsehood, are for the little people.

When people like Michael Bloomberg get up in the morning, they don't ask if they're right or wrong, telling the truth or lying. They ask what they want, and what to say that might get other people to go along with them and feed them power, money or whatever they want.

A dishonest salesman, a con man, or a politician, it doesn't matter. Have you listened to anything that went on in the primaries, especially the Democratic primary that went on for long enough to break through the facade a bit? The idea that there is some objective reality, or that there is some real difference between truth and a lie, does not appear to even occur to people like, for example, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

I agree with ArmedBear. It's almost as if those people mentioned above are playing a "role" and they play that "role" in whatever way they can to reach their objectives. What I don't understand is this is WHY they are anti gun - as I don't believe the majority of Americans ARE anti gun.......
 
for example, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Now these are two very special individuals. Not only does truth and fiction does not matter to them one slight bit, they will go ANY distance and resort to ANY tactic, as long as they themelves get to reap all the benefits. They won't care a bit what happens to the country and the rest of the people. The entire nation could be suffering, starving, freezing, these two above individuals won't care, as long as they are living in snug comfort and counting their money, money that flows into their hands relentlessly.
 
What I don't understand is this is WHY they are anti gun - as I don't believe the majority of Americans ARE anti gun.......

That is the $64,000 question. Not only why they are anti-gun, but why are they vehemently opposed to others owning guns. Why do they spend time, money, energy, and resources to get more gun control.

Is it delusions of grandeur to believe they will be safer if there are fewer guns?

I mean you look at some of these anti-gunners and they could be staring at the sun and tell you, "nope, the sun isn't shining." That is how stubborn and close-minded they are.

But the question comes back to me -

WHAT DOES IT PROFIT THEM TO BE SO ANTI-GUN? WHAT IS TO BE GAINED? WHO REALLY BENEFITS FROM THEIR ACTIVITY?
 
That is the $64,000 question. Not only why they are anti-gun, but why are they vehemently opposed to others owning guns. Why do they spend time, money, energy, and resources to get more gun control.

Is it delusions of grandeur to believe they will be safer if there are fewer guns?

I mean you look at some of these anti-gunners and they could be staring at the sun and tell you, "nope, the sun isn't shining." That is how stubborn and close-minded they are.

But the question comes back to me -

WHAT DOES IT PROFIT THEM TO BE SO ANTI-GUN? WHAT IS TO BE GAINED? WHO REALLY BENEFITS FROM THEIR ACTIVITY?

Thank you for bringing up this subject. This subject needs to be explained thoroughly so we can better understand the mentality of the gun grabbers. First of all, it is not about crime control, it is plain CONTROL, nice and simple.
Ever wonder why many powerful anti-gun politicians such as Diane Feinstein, Sarah Brady and Michael Bloomberg either have their own Concealed Carry permits or have heavily armed bodyguards?

Therefore it is safe to say that the anti gunners are not really anti gunners. They strongly support gun ownership, that is, as long as THEY THEMSELVES ONLY are authorized to own guns, and those in place to EMPOWER them, such as bodyguards, soldiers, and police officers to a certain extent.

It is a recipe for totalitarianism. However, they understand that most people today have read 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and A Clckwork Orange and have learned about tragedies such as the Holocaust, so they need a more clever tactic to deceive the people. Now, anyone will understand that the basic human instinct is on their own safety and well being, and most individuals would resort to anything to ensure their own safety. They come up with a brilliant plan to deceive the people. Make them believe that disarmament would help protect them. Lure them into believing the false facts the gun control reduce crime. Therefore, crime becomes a scapegoat for the gun banners. Their intentions are not about reducing crime, it is reducing the peoples' political power. That is the reason why legislators in high crime cities such as Washington DC and Chicago refuse to adopt more sensible crime-fighting strategies such as Right To Carry. They don't care about the crime rates, the only thing they care about is disarming the nation, paving the road for their further and more oppressive agendas later on.
 
I tend to believe it is willful ignorance.

I have encountered far too many people that, when given a fact contrary to their beliefs, simply say "Well, I don't believe that."

(Many) People no longer make intellectual decisions based on facts. They make decisions based on what feels like it should be right: Truth be damned.

I think this is the biggest thing, the fact that over the last bit of modern history our culture has began to embrace a form of reality in which everyone is "right", no matter how ignorant, uninformed, or plain idiotic their ideas are, because forcing someone to admit they are not right would cause harm to their fragile little minds. I personally know some people who when told a fact are visibly chewing on it in their head, figuring out where it lies in their reality, and not realizing that they are giving equal weight to a FACT explained in great detail to them as they are to whatever idea they had formerly had. Kind of like Houghton Mifflin defining Jihad in their history textbooks as a "struggle against adversity" when they know damn well that it has multiple meanings, and that "struggle against adversity" is about the least commonly used meaning. Generally it means armed struggle against non-believers, but to put that in a history book might make some American Muslims uncomfortable or even cause students to view the Muslim faith with a certain amount of wariness, which would not be politically correct.

I think it really has a lot to do with our society's unfortunate tendency to give equal weight to facts and feelings, as well as a tendency to give people the "right" to not have their worldview challenged, no matter how detached from reality it is, or how dumb it is.
 
Rachen: You may very well be right, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that there is a (conspiracy, brotherhood, organization, etc..) that is intent on disarming America so they can control it.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, it is just a bit hard to believe, when you ask yourself what the end result would be to them.

I have known several anti-gun individuals and more often than not, they have simply been afraid of guns or thought ill of guns because either they or someone close to them was the victim of some type of action with a gun.

Through education, discussion, debate, and experience, most have come to gain a new opinion of guns.

But what were talking about is bigger, organizations like ISANA, Brady, and their fellow ilk. What does it profit them to disarm the rest of the world. They have to know that violence in all other forms is still going to be perpetrated on mankind.

:confused:
 
I have known several anti-gun individuals and more often than not, they have simply been afraid of guns or thought ill of guns because either they or someone close to them was the victim of some type of action with a gun.

These anti gun individuals are most likely not the legislators and political powerhouses themselves. They are victims, people who actually bought into the fearmongering tactics from the higher ups, such as Brady.

But what were talking about is bigger, organizations like ISANA, Brady, and their fellow ilk. What does it profit them to disarm the rest of the world. They have to know that violence in all other forms is still going to be perpetrated on mankind.

Right now, it would be too careless to try guess what their real intentions are. However, I can be sure of one thing: They don't really care about the "other" types of violence. They just focus on guns, because the gun is the political power of the people. The gun helped end feudalism in Europe and modernize nations, and overthrow powerful and corrupt monarchs. Therefore, they want THEMSELVES to be the only ones to have this power. And they also want those individuals who EMPOWER them to have guns, such as security and police forces. It is simply too foolish to say that the Mayor of Chicago is anti gun, when he wants to equip his police force with M-4s. So could be said for Mayor Nagin and Mayor Bloomberg.

Of course they have plenty to profit from disarming the populace. It all revolves around the great fiery wheel of corruption. Corruption is a crime, as well as an endeavor for those "corporate criminals". These criminals are different from your average street thug. These are the criminals that "get away with their crimes because of judicial protection". People who put mentally ill patients under restraints for more than 52 hours, have the patients die from heatstroke, and the perpetrators never get punished for their crimes, these people are an example of corporate criminals, criminals who are allowed by law to get away with murder or extortion. So are those legislators in NYC and elsewhere who embezzle great amounts of money from their positions, then pay prosecutors and attorneys hush money to silence everything up. Now, these people are all anti- gun for a reason. They want the people to be powerless so they can pursue their corporate criminal habits without fear of citizen and mass reprisal. They are aware that people have limits on the amount of bullsh*t they are able to tolerate. With the rise of corporate criminality, it is only a matter of time before the people revolt, and bring the perpetrators to MOB JUSTICE. Therefore, disarmament is always going to be a part of the corrupt official's agenda. It is to ensure them that their potential punishers: the citizenry would not have the power to bring them to justice for their corporate crimes.
 
But you have to wonder what fuels all of this anti-gun agenda and what is to profit from doing so? They know gun control doesn't reduce crime or murder, they know they can't get rid of guns completely, so what is the motivation?
This is an excellent talking point and one that I myself have pondered. Disregarding any rational reason to favor gun control - i.e. those who may or may not have a deliberate agenda - what compels the "average" citizen to support the idea? I'm fairly well convinced that it's a combination of fear and some delusional ambition to "help" or "improve" the world. They must believe that firearms are a major cause of societal problems, and that legislation designed to prohibit the distribution of firearms amongst the populace is actually effective to both ends.

I've noted that a great many "regular" people who despise guns and gun owners and so forth actually have little to no experience with firearms. They tend to be suburbanites who have never been on the receiving end of real threats or violence and and take an excessively optimistic view of human nature. Most have never fired or even handled a gun, and some have only viewed them from afar. It goes without saying that the only shootings they've seen have been in movies. Consequently, they incorrectly view weapons as moral implements on their own. If a person had no need or desire to kill or maim, what use would they have for a firearm? Clearly, then, a firearm must be viewed as an enabler for violence.

I understand this world, because I'm from it. I was born into an affluent family and sheltered from birth. My mother was (and still is) vehemently anti-gun, while my father is actually a collector. Needless to say, their marriage wasn't particularly successful (oh, there were other reasons, to be sure). ;)

Two things helped me avoid the trap:

  • My father always challenged me to think objectively and carefully analyze facts and information before forming opinions.
  • I spent three years (as a university student) living in a borderline ghetto, and watched the depths to which society can sink first hand. My apartment was robbed on more than one occasion, a close friend was attacked for little more than a couple dollars, and there were three confirmed drug dealers living in my building. There were brawls in the parking lot on a fairly regular basis. The highlight was during my final year there (and the one that finally pushed to leave) when I had to hold two guys out of the apartment at knife point because they refused to believe that their dealer (who apparently owed them money) didn't live in my apartment. I didn't tell my parents about it because I didn't want them to worry - and because, in a morbid sort of way, I appreciated the experience and the level of independence I achieved as a result. Nevertheless, this shattered my distorted suburban perception of reality - unfortunately, cynicism is the price of wisdom.

Cities and states with the most restrictive gun controls have the highest rates of different crimes.
Careful with this one - remember the old relationship between correlation and causation. I've seen far too many gun advocates use statements like these to imply that an "armed" populace (or at least one that isn't living under tight firearms restrictions) is an effective deterrent to crime. While this may be, it's quite likely that crime-ridden areas with tight firearms restrictions were crime-ridden areas before these regulations were in place, which is why said regulations are in place (in other words, that approach could be turned against us). To work that to our advantage, we are better off suggesting that this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of gun control, rather than promoting the "deterrent" approach.

I seldom trumpet the self-defense mantra when stating my case to any anti. Remember that they are viewing the issue through an emotionally-tinted lens, and you risk coming off as a vigilante when you taut the idea of armed self-defense. I prefer to express RKBA in the context of a free society defined by individual rights and responsibilities.
 
Quote:
Cities and states with the most restrictive gun controls have the highest rates of different crimes.

Careful with this one - remember the old relationship between correlation and causation. I've seen far too many gun advocates use statements like these to imply that an "armed" populace (or at least one that isn't living under tight firearms restrictions) is an effective deterrent to crime. While this may be, it's quite likely that crime-ridden areas with tight firearms restrictions were crime-ridden areas before these regulations were in place, which is why said regulations are in place (in other words, that approach could be turned against us). To work that to our advantage, we are better off suggesting that this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of gun control, rather than promoting the "deterrent" approach.

I don't know that we need to be careful with this one as much as outline the background for that statement. To your argument, I will provide some info about the Washington DC gun ban. Notice what happened before, during, and after the ban.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsDCGunBanSC031108.html

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been DC’s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.’s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, DC’s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia’s during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977 but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about DC that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. DC cites the Chicago ban to support it’s own. Yet, before Chicago’s ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared – the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

How could this be? DC officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit.

Additional thoughts on the DC gun ban from the post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818_pf.html

All that being said, I have to agree with you, one of the bigger reasons for people to be anti is they have no real experience with guns and are left to forming their opinions from TV, newspapers, movies, politicians, etc...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top