This post has been fermenting in my brain for several months, along with several failed attempts to get it onto paper. Hopefully this time goes a bit better.
It's easy to vilify anti-gunners. Their stated purpose is the removal or curtailment of a highly fundamental right, being self-defense using the most effective tools available. Their stated reasons vary hugely, running the gamut through the technical, (over-penetration, shoot-to-wound, microstamping) the practical (keeping guns away from criminals, statistical arguments, safe storage laws) and the philosophical (guns are evil, I couldn't kill anyone for any reason, just give them what they want.)
Gunnies have a tendency to come up with counter-arguments to each individual point. I have yet to come across any argument that the anti-gunners can outright win. No point in their favor holds up to logical debate for very long. Yet anti-gunners persevere. I think the reason for this is that their stated reasons are not the real reasons.
Anti-gunners fear guns. It is illogical, it is phobic, but it's visceral and unavoidable for them. They typically have grown up in "safe," gun-free environments where the only guns they knew about were in the hands of movie characters, gangs, police officers and soldiers. The same mentality that causes people to freak out about toys causes people to say, "guns are dangerous [which they are, treated wrong] and therefore should not be in existence." They will generally create a framework of rationalizations for their fear [as Tam put it, man is not the rational creature, he is the rationalizing creature] but logical counter-argument will always fail, because the issue doesn't stem from a logical incompatibility.
I can't fault people for having these sorts of fears. Big dogs make me nervous, because I know that given a lack of proper control and training, they can be dangerous.* I have a tendency to extend the same nervous apprehension to every dog, regardless of owner or history. It's essentially the same thing for an anti-gunner. Some guns are used badly, and they react with fear to all guns. Fear is not a sin. A phobia is something to work past if you can, but it is not a sign of evil. These people are not out trying to strip your rights because they want to see a tyranny, or because they want to reward criminals. They just have a kneejerk reaction to what scares them.
There are some antis that I am not so sympathetic towards. These are normally young people out of a society and educational establishment that have coddled and sheltered them from the harsher realities of the world who have been told for years that they are special. They take this to mean that they are smarter than the rest of the world, and that their cloistered view of the world is what the world as a whole can and should be. In short, the classic young liberal. The mixture of this arrogance and this irrational fear means that their rationalizations are much more strongly held. Their absolute conviction in their moral high ground disguises the basis in fear even from themselves.
Perhaps my readers will disagree, but I have no sympathy or tolerance for the people who get up on their soapbox with these sorts of opinions. They are irritating, wrongheaded, and childish.**
There is of course one more type of anti. This sort is the one to not only NOT receive your tolerance, but also receive your full wrath. These are the people who want to strip you of your rights for personal gain. They are mostly found in politics. There are those who would strip you of your rights to establish a more powerful position for themselves and their parties. These people are totalitarians in training (or maybe full-fledged in some cases) and deserve your ire. They still act out of fear, but the fear is not fear of a thing, it is fear of a check to their power.
In my mind, while actions are the primary source of valid judgment of a person, the reasons for the things they do must be considered. Mens Rea is important in judicial matters, and matters of morality depend on knowing the morality involved. So long as people are open-minded, or don't engage with the issue, I can't fault people for anti-gun sentiment. When you mix in close-minded arrogance or a desire for personal gain, those same sentiments become intolerable.
And to any antis that have read this far without leaving in fury? First off, thanks for your time, and second, if you want to prove you aren't acting out of fear, come to a blogshoot, or find a local blogger who will take you shooting. If you go in with an open mind, experience firearms, and hear the arguments for them still with an open mind, and still don't agree, then we can talk.
*I know the fundamental differences between dogs and guns, ie, a dog is animate and can decide for itself, whereas a gun is completely dependent on a user. Humor the analogy.
**And they think precisely the same thing about me! What fun!
"if you want to prove you aren't acting out of fear, come to a blogshoot, or find a local blogger who will take you shooting. If you go in with an open mind, experience firearms, and hear the arguments for them still with an open mind, and still don't agree, then we can talk."
ReplyDeleteNever happen. Haplophobia and an "open mind" are mutually exclusive. No one with an open mind could possibly write off the right of defense of self, home, property, and loved ones as a conditional right granted by government. Who, by the way, should ALWAYS be referred to as "they," never as "we."
One of the bigger problems associated with anti gunner types is that deep down inside they know that they cannot give one inch to the possibility that they are wrong. If they do this, then it might possibly lend credence to the idea that their whole worldview is incorrect or simply flawed.
ReplyDeleteMany would rather wrap themselves in a warm blanket of static ignorance, all the while ignoring the changing climate of reality.
Scribbler,
ReplyDeleteGood points but I think you forgot a type of anti; the blame shift.
Look at Joan Peterson as an example of this; she can't blame her sister for staying with an abusive husband. She can't blame the abusive brother in law without admitting she accepted that man into her family. She can't blame herself for her actions or inaction.
So what is left to blame -- the firearm.
These are normally young people out of a society and educational establishment that have coddled and sheltered them from the harsher realities of the world who have been told for years that they are special. They take this to mean that they are smarter than the rest of the world, and that their cloistered view of the world is what the world as a whole can and should be. In short, the classic young liberal.
I am exactly the opposite on this issue. I have sympathy for them. I remember what it was like to think I knew it all before elders and life taught me differently.
I can engage these people and at least make them think. So many of the other antis have hardened their mindset so much they are unwilling to think.
We can reach the young, we can use their own education against them to get them to research the issue.
The blame shift is a fascinating one, and no, I hadn't thought of it. Thanks for pointing it out.
DeleteI think I probably have a harsher view on the people my own age than you do in part because they are my own age, and are the antis I come into most frequent contact with. Their self-satisfied holier-than-thou manner grates entirely the wrong way on me, and they refuse full force to consider a single word I say. My problem with them is that while they may be more malleable to different world-views over time, there is nothing I can say that will get them started on that path, and in the process of trying the condescension is truly legendary. To me, these people are not worth arguing with. It may be different for other people.
To me, the essence of argument is a level playing field. Both parties must accept that logic works, which can be as simple as a>b, b>c, so a>c. Many liberals, and thus many haplophobes, do not understand logic. They base their "arguments" on FEELINGS. It SEEMS wrong, therefore it is. It FEELS bad, therefore it should be banned. Look at the "assault" weapons ban. It LOOKS scary, therefore a machine identical in function to a deer rifle should be prohibited.
ReplyDeleteThe whole concept of an inanimate object as "evil" is illogical. We try to win on rationality - that's hard when you are up against irrational beliefs.