Number of anti's on THR?
- Thread starter Glock22
- Start date
- Status
Titan6
member
If you will notice the antis have switched tactics since people have developed tools like the internet. When it is so easy to bring facts and statistics and historical records into play in an instant people with false emotionally based arguments quickly lose. It is also very hard to go back and say ''I never said that''.
The tactic that has been failing the pols is to wait for a target of opportunity and appeal to the ignorant and the emotionally blinded. In order for this to work legislation has to be quick which is why there have been few anti successes in recent history.
The next step will likely be to focus on a false utopia of some kind. People love false utopias because it provides a solution to their problems. It is hard to fight one because it allows for a future possibility and no one can predict the future.
I do find it funny that some of us are our own worse enemies. I was subvertly accused of cowardice on the board because I would not shoot a disarmed thief in the back who was running away, given the opportunity. This apparently is quite a popular view on this board. Does not make me anti only smart I think.
The tactic that has been failing the pols is to wait for a target of opportunity and appeal to the ignorant and the emotionally blinded. In order for this to work legislation has to be quick which is why there have been few anti successes in recent history.
The next step will likely be to focus on a false utopia of some kind. People love false utopias because it provides a solution to their problems. It is hard to fight one because it allows for a future possibility and no one can predict the future.
I do find it funny that some of us are our own worse enemies. I was subvertly accused of cowardice on the board because I would not shoot a disarmed thief in the back who was running away, given the opportunity. This apparently is quite a popular view on this board. Does not make me anti only smart I think.
Crunker1337
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,168
I support background checks for all firearms purchases and registration of large explosives and anti-tank weapons.
Am I an anti?
Am I an anti?
Daniel T
Member
Pretty much.
Notch
Member
The antis get all the ammo they need from the kids on arfcom.
Scorpiusdeus
member
Gun control, race relations, immigrations, abortion....
There will always be two sides to every argument. Sometimes they are legitimate concerns, sometimes they are more irrational.
Anyone expecting any different is just setting themselves up for disappointment.
There will always be two sides to every argument. Sometimes they are legitimate concerns, sometimes they are more irrational.
Anyone expecting any different is just setting themselves up for disappointment.
Beatnik
Member
I'd like to state for the record that I have never had rational discourse with an anti. If they exist, if they're capable of getting deeper into the argument than simply "I don't FEEL that we need to have guns", then I have yet to meet one.
Antis like the Brady bunch are not completely anti. They will at least pay lip service to the necessity of firearms ownership. For instance, when 100% anti gun government officials go places and need security, they bring along armed guards. They're not doubting the necessity of firearms in this case.
What they are doubting 100% is the necessity of YOU owning firearms.
Guess what? When you make fun of the AR crowd or the survivalists, you're doing the same thing. You're passing judgement on who should and should not own firearms based on your personal feelings.
If you want to reason that the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms, that's a separate rational argument. If you want to argue that survivalists should be considered mentally ill, that's a separate argument (bordering on irrational, but thats just my opinion).
But if you only point to an entire group of people and state "they shouldn't have guns" - even indirectly, as was done - then you're no better than the antis. That's not rational argument, that's an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
A rational arguer would ask: what was he running with? Your TV? Your jewelry? Nothing? Your daughter?
Antis like the Brady bunch are not completely anti. They will at least pay lip service to the necessity of firearms ownership. For instance, when 100% anti gun government officials go places and need security, they bring along armed guards. They're not doubting the necessity of firearms in this case.
What they are doubting 100% is the necessity of YOU owning firearms.
Guess what? When you make fun of the AR crowd or the survivalists, you're doing the same thing. You're passing judgement on who should and should not own firearms based on your personal feelings.
If you want to reason that the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms, that's a separate rational argument. If you want to argue that survivalists should be considered mentally ill, that's a separate argument (bordering on irrational, but thats just my opinion).
But if you only point to an entire group of people and state "they shouldn't have guns" - even indirectly, as was done - then you're no better than the antis. That's not rational argument, that's an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
A rational arguer would ask: what was he running with? Your TV? Your jewelry? Nothing? Your daughter?
I am a big fan of gun control. the lack of readily accessible, affordable year round ranges with subsidized instruction for all ages in firearms handling and proficency undermines the nation in the military arena and in civilian defense.
Obviously gun safety, and some degree of handling and marksmanship should be taught in schools. Safe practices make for effective gun control. It should be like driver's ed only funded properly and implemented earlier and over at least 5 years.
....... somehow I think when I speak of gun control I am talking in a different language
Obviously gun safety, and some degree of handling and marksmanship should be taught in schools. Safe practices make for effective gun control. It should be like driver's ed only funded properly and implemented earlier and over at least 5 years.
....... somehow I think when I speak of gun control I am talking in a different language
Titan6
member
Running away with a car stereo. But it had a really ''bitchin' sound'' or so I was made to believe.
It was really humorous. You know shooting people in the back and all. The other day out in Arizona there was a gent who who shot and killed a nine year old boy for throwing rocks at his trailer. Down in Houston last month a similar situation. At least I know where these type posters are coming from.
It was really humorous. You know shooting people in the back and all. The other day out in Arizona there was a gent who who shot and killed a nine year old boy for throwing rocks at his trailer. Down in Houston last month a similar situation. At least I know where these type posters are coming from.
RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
I've had them, but they've been rare. Typically it is with rational people who have been exposed to bad information, such as Kellerman (complete with the erroneous conclusion that is always dragged out about Kellerman). Even still, there is always some emotional component that has to do with "feeling safe." These are the people who are not afraid of guns but have taken whatever information they have and used it to reach a different conclusion than you. I respect these people because they usually respect me. Unfortunately, they're the exception rather than the rule.
Strong feelings is what this debate is really all about. That's why it can be such a volatile, unintelligent one.
Every now and then you run across a person who wants to "debate" you, except their version of debating consists of demonstrating how irrational, loud, and sometimes violent the prohibitionist side of things can get. That's the type of debate I stay away from.
Beatnik said:
Beatnik said:
Am I following you?
- If you point to an entire group of people ("the mentally ill") and state that shouldn't have guns, that's a separate rational argument.
- If you point to an entire group of people and state they shouldn't have guns, that's not a rational argument, that's an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
Huh?
Aside from the contradiction, is there any reason to believe that arguing that large group of people shouldn't have guns is an logical fallacy? What does the size of the group have to do with it?
Mike
Mannlicher
Member
why would anyone care if 'antis' hang here or not?
Titan6
member
We would want anti's to be here so that they can learn the truth. Once people find that they have been lied to all their lives than (this involves rational acceptance of the facts, not emotional appeals) they are much more likely to be a strong suporter than someone who has been on board all along.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Maybe my experience is rare, but I have had many rational discussions with those who would abolish the right of individuals to own guns. These were not people arguing from irrational fear. Rather, they have a different value system. They tended to be more collectively than individualistically minded. One grad student I had was an inner-city EMT, who saw the results of out of control gun violence. It is not "irrational" for such a person to want to see guns limited to law enforcement. And he was willing to engage in constructive discussion.
We who support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms need to be careful not to get caught up in definitional tautologies. If we define "antis" as those with "irrational" fear and aggressive anti-gun activism, we'll never find one with whom we can have a "rational" discussion. But there are those with negative experiences--some horrific--and they are not "irrational!" They have experience-grounded perceptions.
Similarly, there are likely many who oppose the private ownership of guns (e.g., fascists) not out of any irrational fear, but rather from a political calculus that finds an armed citizenry antithetical to their political objectives. It might be hard to carry on a debate with one of this mindset, because they might want to hide their agenda.
But these are not "irrational" positions ... much as I disagree with them.
We who support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms need to be careful not to get caught up in definitional tautologies. If we define "antis" as those with "irrational" fear and aggressive anti-gun activism, we'll never find one with whom we can have a "rational" discussion. But there are those with negative experiences--some horrific--and they are not "irrational!" They have experience-grounded perceptions.
Similarly, there are likely many who oppose the private ownership of guns (e.g., fascists) not out of any irrational fear, but rather from a political calculus that finds an armed citizenry antithetical to their political objectives. It might be hard to carry on a debate with one of this mindset, because they might want to hide their agenda.
But these are not "irrational" positions ... much as I disagree with them.
DonP
Member
Euro Trash Antis
I miss the Euro Trash we used to get in here once in a while.
They were fun when they asked us why we all wanted to be cowboys and carry guns everywhere and how many people had we shot and such.
I think we had one guy that learned everything he knew about guns and American Culture from playing video games.
They always seemed a little surprised that we didn't threaten them and tried to reason with them. I think it confused their preconceived notions of violent, angry American gun owners.
I haven't seen any of them in a year or more now.
Ahhh, I miss the little tykes.
I miss the Euro Trash we used to get in here once in a while.
They were fun when they asked us why we all wanted to be cowboys and carry guns everywhere and how many people had we shot and such.
I think we had one guy that learned everything he knew about guns and American Culture from playing video games.
They always seemed a little surprised that we didn't threaten them and tried to reason with them. I think it confused their preconceived notions of violent, angry American gun owners.
I haven't seen any of them in a year or more now.
Ahhh, I miss the little tykes.
Stickjockey
Member
Zundfolge
Member
Whenever I see an anti-gun or otherwise odd post on this forum, first thing I do is click on their username, go down to "Find more posts by..." and if they don't have any posts in any forum but L&P and General, I dismiss them completely.
Not too many real firearms enthusiasts that don't occasionally ask a question in one of the technical forums.
Not too many real firearms enthusiasts that don't occasionally ask a question in one of the technical forums.
grafsk8er
Member
my mom doesn't like guns. i'm not saying she's anti-gun, but she's definitely not for them. me, my brother, and dad have many guns, she doesn't like them, but she's accepted the fact that we enjoy shooting and hunting. the only reason that i can think of that she doesn't like them is that she was never brought up around them.
Logos
member
It's ludicrous to break it down into just anti and pro.
I'm both and I think a lot of other people are, too.
There may be a few people that are totally anti or totally pro.....but they're few and far between.
Here.....we seem to see a noisy few that are totally pro......they are on a crusade and they ARE amusing.
And woe to the person that dares disagree with them.
I'm both and I think a lot of other people are, too.
There may be a few people that are totally anti or totally pro.....but they're few and far between.
Here.....we seem to see a noisy few that are totally pro......they are on a crusade and they ARE amusing.
And woe to the person that dares disagree with them.
Legionnaire said:
I don't think that your experience is rare. If you are willing to listen, I think that you will find it pretty common. I think that a difference in value systems underlies most of those discussions.
I think that it's a lot easier to dismiss someone's argument as emotional than it is to try and probe and fully understand a difference in values. Many people would rather parrot than think, and trying to understand how different polices might be derived from different values take intellectual energy.
I suspect that part of the issues does have to do with collective good versus individual good. Most folks who are reasonably anti really argue from some perspective about what is good for society. Most pro gun rights folks tend to emphasize their individual right to defend themselves and their families, etc.
Thanks, I hadn't thought of it thay way before.
Mike
What's wrong with an emotional argument?
Is it rational, logical thinking that makes you angry when you hear about some kid getting drowned in a bathtub or some young woman getting raped?
I can tell you that it sure isn't logic that makes me think things like that are wrong. It is all emotion and I'm pefectly OK with that.
A little OT, but I still thought it needed said.
Is it rational, logical thinking that makes you angry when you hear about some kid getting drowned in a bathtub or some young woman getting raped?
I can tell you that it sure isn't logic that makes me think things like that are wrong. It is all emotion and I'm pefectly OK with that.
A little OT, but I still thought it needed said.
- Status
