Anti-Rage

[jahwarrior72]

i came across this earlier today, and thought it was brilliant:

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD

thoughts?

[XACEX]

i think they're just stupid

[Paradigm]

Interesting perspective. It would seem that the people who get in the face of a gun owner seem to have some issues. If one was so afraid of guns, why confront someone with a gun? It is clearly not a true fear of guns, but gun ownership. Is this person confrontational because of a political motivation? Maybe rage?

I think the truly "anti-gun" people are the ones who hurry off or shepherd their kids away from the gun and quietly tell a store manager or call the police.


Then there's a whole ton of folks in the middle who don't hate guns...they just don't understand them and haven't experienced them other than what they have seen on TV or on the news. My wife is in this category.

[P7hk9]

I wonder if the doctor did any studies, or this is just based on general observation. If she did a real study, I'd be interested in seeing it.

The way I see it, the antis that will get in your face are true believers. They see guns as destroying the world, and everyone that has one is evil. If only the guns were gone, we wouldn't have the tools to destroy (never mind all the wars fought and people killed before guns). Unfortunately, these true believers are the people that make the most noise.

I believe the larger problem for us is the third group that Paradigm mentioned: the people who don't think about guns. It helps if they are sheep and can't think for themselves. They are the ones that are easily influenced by the media showing scary pictures of black rifles and horror stories of cheap, disposable handguns made especially for criminals. It's the apathetic sheep that can be easily influenced by the fear the media creates. The picture the antis paint is one where there are vast numbers of evil guns on the streets, and everyone that has one is a criminal hell-bent on shooting defenseless people. It's these easily scared people that the true believers seek out. All they have to do is scare them enough to vote.

[TaePo]

<snip> It would seem that the people who get in the face of a gun owner seem to have some issues. If one was so afraid of guns, why confront someone with a gun? <snip>

Perhaps there is a bit of showmanship or one-up-manship. Ooh, look, I confronted someone with a gun and espoused my opinions on them. Aren't I the brave one. Staring down an evil gun that terrorizes people.

Of course, they are pretty sure you won't cap them either. It would be like berating Santa Clause in the street. Or telling Jesus you hate his guts and he is stupid. Chances are, they are not going to get upset and retaliate against an offensive or obnoxious person.

I have yet to hear of a case where an OCer was accosted by an antigun person in an obnoxious manner when the two were completely alone. (In an empty room or elevator etc.)

It always seems to be done where there are plenty of witnesses to observe our brave anti-gunner rant.

[riverpirate]

Damn, i just read this thread because i thought you found a cure and they were going to cancel the next movie

[psublue]

I had a history teacher in high school who taught me about "the rule of three" when it comes to big issues - abortion, gun control, economic systems, education, etc. The basic idea is that for every big issue, there will be three groups of people: those who agree with you, those who disagree with you, and those who don't know enough and/or don't care to choose a side. The secret to dealing with people in each group is to understand where they're coming from and tailor your argument accordingly.

The group that agrees with you probably won't change positions, because their opinion is so deeply rooted that they can't change it. Whether it's upbringing, personal experience, education, or any other factor, it's unlikely that any external force will change their position. While it's great to pat ourselves on the back and retreat to tooting our own horns, it doesn't accomplish much.

Likewise, the people who disagree with you are unlikely to change positions no matter how logical or persuasive your argument may be. It seems like this doctor was supporting that idea by saying that anti-gun people have these issues with handling rage that are unlikely to be overcome. Sure, we can present logical arguments, but these people just don't want to listen. It's like trying to take down a tank with a sidearm (now I'm trolling for "I did that once" replies) - it may feel good to try, but it's not going to yield results.

When it comes to guns, the vast majority of the country is in the third group. They probably don't know much about gun rights, gun laws, gun safety, or responsible gun use. The lies that they have been fed (from both sides of the issue, sadly) are easy enough to clear up with a logical argument. These are people who aren't dealing with deeply ingrained issues that cause them to take a strong stance for either side, and it's up to responsible gun owners to get out and influence public opinion.

Sorry for going off topic a bit. I'll get off my soapbox now

[GunLawyer001]

I'll say this, that there's a significant "projection" factor among the people who say that anyone who has a gun will shoot the next person who cuts them off in traffic or is rude at the supermarket. With a dose of cognitive dissonance thrown in.

These are usually "progressive" and "enlightened" people who assume that they are better than the average person (that means you). Yet they feel rage on a daily basis, rage that's disproportionate to the issues, because in fact they are immature loonies with daddy issues.

These people actually WOULD shoot several people per year, if given the physical ability to do so. Yet they are certain that they are better than the rest of us unenlightened yahoos. So if THEY can't control themselves, how could we beer-swilling Neanderthals POSSIBLY be trusted with guns?

[Curmudgeon]

For anyone interested, here's the full write-up...

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ragingagain.PDF





N.B: Interestingly enough, I'm trying to get background on the writer, and I'm coming up with nothing. Oh, there are countless results of people by the same name, but nothing that relates to the writer. Additionally, in an attempt to follow the links for the writer's home page as well as a Utah gun group that hosts the opinion, I find that both links are a dead-end. This, although interesting and appealing, is beginning to fail the sniff test.

...just sayin'

[JIDinPhilly]

I'll say this, that there's a significant "projection" factor among the people who say that anyone who has a gun will shoot the next person who cuts them off in traffic or is rude at the supermarket. With a dose of cognitive dissonance thrown in.

These are usually "progressive" and "enlightened" people who assume that they are better than the average person (that means you). Yet they feel rage on a daily basis, rage that's disproportionate to the issues, because in fact they are immature loonies with daddy issues.

These people actually WOULD shoot several people per year, if given the physical ability to do so. Yet they are certain that they are better than the rest of us unenlightened yahoos. So if THEY can't control themselves, how could we beer-swilling Neanderthals POSSIBLY be trusted with guns?

I posted an article on the psychology of an anti. One of the things about the anti mentality that fascinated me, was the "projection" part of it.
http://forum.pafoa.org/lounge-108/86...ml#post1061738