Our house of glass

[mjfletcher]

Since my post got derailed by a few people who only wanted to focus on one example of the situation I'm reposting this here AND adding some bold to it in the hopes that it doesn't happen again.

This "pack mentality" isn't going to be tolerated.

OP's name removed because my reply isn't about him or this incident specifically, its about an observation I've made.

Someone will make a post that many people disagree with resulting in lots of neg rep and/or replies stating their disagreement. Sometimes the replies are just name calling, other times they point out verifiable facts or personal observations that counter the statements made.

Everytime this happens, someone makes a post about "pack mentality," "piling on," "lemmings," etc. While its possible that it could people "following the herd" (which has also been said), its equally possible that the responses are coming from a group of people who feel the same way on the issue.

Also, everytime someone makes a post about "pack mentality" it nomrally gets just as many responses agreeing with it as the posts it was referring to, yet nobody ever points out the equally possible "pack mentality" of those responses.

We have a large group of firearm owners here, and as with any group there will be sub-groups with similar, if not identical, beliefs on some aspects of the subject that brought them together. Members of those sub-groups will have similar, if not identical, responses to the particular aspect their sub-group is specifically interested in. That's not pack mentality, they have the same belief about the subject and as such respond the same way in regard to it. They're not just blindly following along, they're speaking up on something they believe in.

When Anti-2A legislation comes along, we all line up to oppose it and never even consider calling it pack mentality yet we refer to those who support it as being "sheep following the herd" which is just another way of saying pack mentality.
When we as a whole support something and speak up its ok but when the general public doesn't support it and speaks up its "following the herd".
When a sub-group of us supports something that another doesn't and speaks up in favor of it its pack mentality for the first group but not for the second when they speak up against it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the glass house known as PAFOA and the hypocrites who live within.
Yes, I said it. We're hypocrites living in a house of glass and throwing stones not only at those on the outside but at each other as well.

I'll be piling my stones out back.

And now for some more examples.

If someone posts that the 2A is about hunting they'll get a few dozen replies that its about defense against all aggressors including the government. Nobody cries "pack mentality" about those replies.
If someone posts that nobody should be able to own NFA weapons/items they'll get multiple responses about the need for the people to be as well armed as the government. Nobody cries "pack mentality" about those replies.
If someone posts supporting gun registration they'll be flooded with replies about registration only being useful for government confiscation. Nobody cries "pack mentality" about those replies.
If one group of members goes out of their way to attack and disparage an aspect of the 2A and those who engage in it nobody cries "pack mentality," but the moment more than one person responds the cries of "pack mentality" ring out.
Those who are opposed to 2A rights are accused of "pack mentality" through being labeled "sheeple" no matter what the reason(s) for their opposition, but nobody calls foul about the "Pack mentality" of blindly applying that label.

We're all guilty, so I'll close the same way I did before.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the glass house known as PAFOA and the hypocrites who live within.
Yes, I said it. We're hypocrites living in a house of glass and throwing stones not only at those on the outside but at each other as well.

I'll be piling my stones out back.

[adymond]

Good idea for a thread. I hope I don't kill it too fast. I will call pack mentality/sheeple on someone if they can not clearly articulate their views and why they hold them. If you and I hold the same views and can each independantly articulate why we hold them along with say another 500 of our closest friends here at PAFOA we don't have pack mentality and aren't following the herd because we have each reached the same conclusion (or at least reasonably close to the same) through the experience of our lives it's not group think.

When you are parroting what you hear or read where you hang out and can't really use logic to defend your position that is group thin. It's more about how people come to a conclusion than it is about how many people have come to that conclusion.

[Vig]

Good idea for a thread. I hope I don't kill it too fast. I will call pack mentality/sheeple on someone if they can't (I think this is what was meant here) clearly articulate their views and why they hold them. If you and I hold the same views and can each independantly articulate why we hold them along with say another 500 of our closest friends here at PAFOA we don't have pack mentality and aren't following the herd because we have each reached the same conclusion (or at least reasonably close to the same) through the experience of our lives it's not group think.

When you are parroting what you hear or read where you hang out and can't really use logic to defend your position that is group thin. It's more about how people come to a conclusion than it is about how many people have come to that conclusion.

I think that this is the answer to your question. Pack/Herd/Sheeple mentality is purely when folks follow what they're told without understanding why. Folks are guilty of it on both sides, whether it be the MSM or the NRA telling them what to think.

[MuzzleFlash]

Those who are opposed to 2A rights are accused of "pack mentality" through being labeled "sheeple" no matter what the reason(s) for their opposition, but nobody calls foul about the "Pack mentality" of blindly applying that label.

To steal one of my own quotes from an older thread, "It's difficult to market hardship and effort, especially if the individual gets nothing in return except a few petty rights that they weren't utilizing anyway. That's why they're "sheeple," they take the path of least resistance lead by the promise of greener pastures or the fear of wolves to heard them this way or that way, all the while they're lead unaware to their slaughter."

They're "sheeple" because like sheep they're comfort-seeking creatures driven by fear in the direction of whoever barks the loudest. We are not, we have staffs to beat the wolves back even though we may be filled with fear at the time. There's nothing wrong with "pack mentality," a pack of lions are equally and independently as cunning as the pack of hyenas, yet they fight. So my application of the label isn't blind. Sheeple = fear, hiding in the group for protection rather than taking personal responsibility.

[normanvin]

I am not sure that "the pack mentality" really applies. I think when you have a forum such as we have here, that you will have many like minded people. If these people voice their opinion does that constitute a pack?

[adymond]

I am not sure that "the pack mentality" really applies. I think when you have a forum such as we have here, that you will have many like minded people. If these people voice their opinion does that constitute a pack?

At times. For a good example, look at how many times EVD is shouted down for being a leftist socialist pig without people actually reading what he says. Many of the posts contain at least a few nuggets that had I posted them I would end up getting some more green boxes under my name. Take the religion threads too. I think we display some group think in them. You have the believers and the non-believers and many of them can't articulate their views without becoming hostile toward each other. I think that may be an indicator right there. If you can't discuss your views with a person holding opposing views without getting pissed off and hostile it may indicate your lack of ability to conceptualize and articulate your views.

[mjfletcher]

To steal one of my own quotes from an older thread, "It's difficult to market hardship and effort, especially if the individual gets nothing in return except a few petty rights that they weren't utilizing anyway. That's why they're "sheeple," they take the path of least resistance lead by the promise of greener pastures or the fear of wolves to heard them this way or that way, all the while they're lead unaware to their slaughter."

They're "sheeple" because like sheep they're comfort-seeking creatures driven by fear in the direction of whoever barks the loudest. We are not, we have staffs to beat the wolves back even though we may be filled with fear at the time. There's nothing wrong with "pack mentality," a pack of lions are equally and independently as cunning as the pack of hyenas, yet they fight. So my application of the label isn't blind. Sheeple = fear, hiding in the group for protection rather than taking personal responsibility.

Yet regardless of a persons reasons for being an anti we label them sheeple. We all know people that are against 2A rights, some that I know have sat down, looked at the pros and cons, done a risk assessment of them, and come to the conclusion that the average person shouldn't have guns because the risks outweigh the benefits. Even though they used logic and reason to come to their conclusion they still get labeled accused of blindly following the herd simply because their conclusion is different from ours and/or we automatically assume their reasoning is flawed.

We go right into "pack mentality" with regards to anyone that's anti-2A, accuse them of "following the herd" and in doing so demonstrate our own hypocritical double standard.

I am not sure that "the pack mentality" really applies. I think when you have a forum such as we have here, that you will have many like minded people. If these people voice their opinion does that constitute a pack?

When we're talking about us voicing our opinion we don't call it "pack mentality" When were talking about those whose opinion is opposite ours we do call it "pack mentality." On the site we have different groups with varying opinions on the 2A, most aren't accused of "pack mentality" but some are. Some of the groups that aren't accused rightly should be, while some that are shouldn't be. We set a double standard on 2A issues, its ok for us to all have the same opinion and beliefs but not anyone else, and even among ourselves there are some opinions that are deemed to be "pack mentality."

We need to recognize our own failings before we can truly hope to get others to see our side for what it is.

[MuzzleFlash]

Yet regardless of a persons reasons for being an anti we label them sheeple. We all know people that are against 2A rights, some that I know have sat down, looked at the pros and cons, done a risk assessment of them, and come to the conclusion that the average person shouldn't have guns because the risks outweigh the benefits. Even though they used logic and reason to come to their conclusion they still get labeled accused of blindly following the herd simply because their conclusion is different from ours and/or we automatically assume their reasoning is flawed.

We go right into "pack mentality" with regards to anyone that's anti-2A, accuse them of "following the herd" and in doing so demonstrate our own hypocritical double standard.

Typically because their logic and reason is based on faulty data or outright lies, if there's any information to back them up at all aside from a feeling. If they personally feel it's not in their best interest to carry, so be it, but their assessment ends with them and doesn't require anyone else to be unarmed. Pro gun people aren't forcing people to own guns, we're fighting for the right to have one if you so choose. Anti gun people are removing that choice and taking them away from everyone, except the criminals.
If the data showed that the removal of firearms decreased crime and ensured protection against tyranny then I would be an anti. I respect their cause, we have the same goal which is safety and protection. The difference is I believe in personal responsibility, they believe in group responsibility. "If a criminal attacks me, well then the legal system failed to protect me."

Their reasoning is not flawed, it's perfect given their information. I've used this before as an example on logic and reasoning; I know that every time I place a match in a fluid such as water, tea, milk, juice, whatever, it will be extinguished. Clearly if I place that match in any fluid then it will be extinguished. My logic is flawless, until I loose my eyebrows and discover new information when a jug of kerosene explodes in my face.
It's been my experience that anti's tend to be motivated by pure emotion and hippy-like concepts with no supporting data, incorrect or manipulative data, and very little understanding of politics, history, or the realization that history does in fact repeat and we're living it. I have yet to encounter a single anti with a position I would consider logical when provided with all the information.
I'll also note that "anti" in this case means those pushing for gun control. If someone sitting at home chooses not to be armed, doesn't like guns, doesn't think anyone should have them, and isn't voting or supporting the cause in any way then they're not sheep. Sheep at least move.

So, I don't know of any other reason why a person would be anti, I would love to hear anti gun opinions that aren't based in fear or information that's flat out factually wrong.

[mjfletcher]

Typically because their logic and reason is based on faulty data or outright lies, if there's any information to back them up at all aside from a feeling. If they personally feel it's not in their best interest to carry, so be it, but their assessment ends with them and doesn't require anyone else to be unarmed. Pro gun people aren't forcing people to own guns, we're fighting for the right to have one if you so choose. Anti gun people are removing that choice and taking them away from everyone, except the criminals.
If the data showed that the removal of firearms decreased crime and ensured protection against tyranny then I would be an anti. I respect their cause, we have the same goal which is safety and protection. The difference is I believe in personal responsibility, they believe in group responsibility. "If a criminal attacks me, well then the legal system failed to protect me."

The bold is a great example of what I'm talking about. Intentionally or not, you have lumped them all together (the same way we all do) with the assumption that they want someone else to protect them. Not believing in firearm ownership isn't necessarily believing others should be protecting them. To refer back to the anti's I know that have thought it through, most of them carry pepper spray, 180dB personal alarms, and/or have taken some form of martial arts for personal protection. They do believe in taking personal responsibility, they also happen to believe that private ownership of firearms has more risks than benefits and that those risks outweigh the benefits.

Their reasoning is not flawed, it's perfect given their information. I've used this before as an example on logic and reasoning; I know that every time I place a match in a fluid such as water, tea, milk, juice, whatever, it will be extinguished. Clearly if I place that match in any fluid then it will be extinguished. My logic is flawless, until I loose my eyebrows and discover new information when a jug of kerosene explodes in my face.

We use a similar reasoning. We point out the number of crimes stopped by law abiding citizens with firearms and then state that "if one of the victims had had a gun..." in reference to mass shootings as if we have know for a fact it would have stopped the shooting. We base that assumption on the fact that armed citizens have stopped crimes in the past, just as you based your assumption that the match would go out on other liquids putting it out.

Its the exact same reasoning and its just as flawed. Being a "what if/might have" scenario its alwo rhetoric. Damn this realization about double standards! Why did I have it??? lol

It's been my experience that anti's tend to be motivated by pure emotion and hippy-like concepts with no supporting data, incorrect or manipulative data, and very little understanding of politics, history, or the realization that history does in fact repeat and we're living it. I have yet to encounter a single anti with a position I would consider logical when provided with all the information.

What is our desire to be self sufficient based on? An emotional need to not rely on others. We are just as motivated by emotion as they are yet we treat their emotional motivation as being somehow less important/valid than ours. Its our double standard at work again.

I'll also note that "anti" in this case means those pushing for gun control. If someone sitting at home chooses not to be armed, doesn't like guns, doesn't think anyone should have them, and isn't voting or supporting the cause in any way then they're not sheep. Sheep at least move.

A lazy sheep is still a sheep. Of course, here we both are calling them sheep and lumping them all together into the category of "following the herd" for being opposed to something we support. Baaaaaaad us.

So, I don't know of any other reason why a person would be anti, I would love to hear anti gun opinions that aren't based in fear or information that's flat out factually wrong.

One of them that I've encountered broke out the FBI annual crime report and assessment a couple years ago that he showed me. Part of the assessment related to crimes stopped with a firearm and how many of them could have been prevented with tear gas/mace/stun gun or something other than a firearm. The assessment found that, based on LE investigations, less than 10% required a firearm with the rest being just as easily stopped through other readily available means. I couldn't argue that point at all as he had the numbers; raw, statisical, and percentage to back him up and we regularly turn to those reports and assessments, or more precisely to quoted stats from them without actually reading them ourself, to support our cause.

Just like they do, we ignore inconvenient data, whether its outright or by responding with data that supports our cause but doesn't refute the data they presented. We put on our blinders and/or deflect as needed, the same as them.

[MuzzleFlash]

The bold is a great example of what I'm talking about. Intentionally or not, you have lumped them all together (the same way we all do) with the assumption that they want someone else to protect them. Not believing in firearm ownership isn't necessarily believing others should be protecting them.

Because I've experienced nothing to the contrary. I'm always keeping an open eye but every anti debate I've ever had has turned to:
"Only police and military should have guns."
Why?
"Because it's their job to protect us, we don't need them. If only the police had guns, the criminals wouldn't have anything to fight back with."
Neither would you.
"I stay away from dangerous areas, and tyranny can't happen in this day and age. "

They rely too heavily on a shepherd to guide and protect them. Yes, I'm aware I just said "they" lumping "them" all together. I think what we have here is more of a problem with semantics and classifications more than one of hypocrisy. I don't think anyone on this forum has ever made a list and agreed on specific definitions so for the most part they become interchangeable. I'm fully aware there are "pro-gun" people, members of the NRA, who could be classified as anti's because if you can't use it for hunting and if it has more than 10 rounds per mag, ban it. Just as "Christian" encapsulates Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc, all of whom have their own differences in belief, "anti" is the widest range of anyone who supports the prohibition of any arms and it encapsulates all subdivisions. This could be taken all the way up to nuclear, at which point most of us are anti.

To refer back to the anti's I know that have thought it through, most of them carry pepper spray, 180dB personal alarms, and/or have taken some form of martial arts for personal protection. They do believe in taking personal responsibility, they also happen to believe that private ownership of firearms has more risks than benefits and that those risks outweigh the benefits.

Pepper spray: Some people are immune, others can ignore it enough to accomplish their attack. If the attacker has a knife, there's still a good chance you can be killed. All of this assumes that the attacker isn't wearing any sort of eye coverings.
180dB alarm: ...for what? They're going to trash their own hearing along with the attacker's, hopefully someone else will hear it and come running? This is borderline "personal defense" since it's main deterrent seems to be that someone else heard it and will come running to their aid.
martial arts: Good for them, how about the elderly, the young, those who don't have time to perfect their hand combat skills against possible groups of attackers with knives?

The gun is the equalizer. Young, old, fit, disabled, they can overcome the most aggressive attackers with it on their own. If they (the particular group of anti's who want to disarm the public because they carry non-lethals) like noise makers and alarms, buy some blanks and fire warning shots.
In regards to their belief that the risks outweigh the rewards for having a gun in the house, are they truly so incompetent and unaware of safety measures that they feel the need to enforce their safety on me in my home? I really don't care what they feel or believe, what I'm looking for are percentages. I'll throw you a bone and say that most gun deaths in the house are probably self inflicted, suicide. Accidents involving others in the house is again a lack of responsibility. There are many ways to conceal, secure, and render inoperable a firearm.

We use a similar reasoning. We point out the number of crimes stopped by law abiding citizens with firearms and then state that "if one of the victims had had a gun..." in reference to mass shootings as if we have know for a fact it would have stopped the shooting. We base that assumption on the fact that armed citizens have stopped crimes in the past, just as you based your assumption that the match would go out on other liquids putting it out.

Its the exact same reasoning and its just as flawed. Being a "what if/might have" scenario its alwo rhetoric. Damn this realization about double standards! Why did I have it??? lol

The point I was trying to get across is that anti's (talking about the special little motivated sect who wants to rid me of my rights based on poor information) don't usually have a working understanding of firearms, safeties, retention holsters, or all the crimes they've stopped. They see the news, every day 10 people are shot around their area. They see home security commercials, the alarm sounds and the thug runs off. They hear about all the accidents and some kid stealing his father's gun. Once educated in retention holsters, safeties, heavy duty safes, and the percentages of killings and accidents, most of the anti's I've talked to have sat stumped in bewilderment and deep thought to process the new information that they never bothered to research. If they continue to retort, it usually devolves into "guns kill people! Therefore guns = bad!" The "anti/sheeple" I'm talking about are synonymous with "uneducated," they don't define the whole.

My demonstration of the misuse of logic was to show that sheeple tend to live in a world surrounded by nonflammables and they can't understand why everyone doesn't just extinguish their matches in whatever's laying around. Home security, pepper spray, martial arts, alarms, and avoiding the bad parts of town has worked fine for me, so you don't need your guns regardless of your circumstance because mine must be universal.
I'd like to see how their defense mechanisms worked on the streets of LA, but I guess they're wealthy and gifted enough to simply avoid those sort of places.

As for us using the same logic, I personally have never made the claim that "if they only had a gun" things would have turned out differently. What I do claim is that if someone had a gun, there would have been a chance that wasn't there previously. I try to look back to documented information as much as possible and avoid speculation into future events and "what if" scenarios. Yes, that could be taken as hypocritical because I believe the more guns, the lower the crime.

What is our desire to be self sufficient based on? An emotional need to not rely on others. We are just as motivated by emotion as they are yet we treat their emotional motivation as being somehow less important/valid than ours. Its our double standard at work again.

The purely logical realization that crimes happen and a gun could keep me alive? I have no emotional reason for buckling up, owning smoke detectors, or carrying a gun. Except perhaps that I "feel safer" doing those things. I wouldn't push an agenda that everyone must be armed to feel as safe as I do, nor should they push an agenda saying no one should be armed so they can feel safe. If they can't feel safe on their own without nagging others and they think it's their right to feel that way, then they need to read the founding documents until they find the part that says "Every person shall be guaranteed life, liberty, and happiness. No person shall be made to feel uncomfortable."

A lazy sheep is still a sheep. Of course, here we both are calling them sheep and lumping them all together into the category of "following the herd" for being opposed to something we support. Baaaaaaad us.

Again, a problem in semantics because specific classifications have never been defined.

One of them that I've encountered broke out the FBI annual crime report and assessment a couple years ago that he showed me. Part of the assessment related to crimes stopped with a firearm and how many of them could have been prevented with tear gas/mace/stun gun or something other than a firearm. The assessment found that, based on LE investigations, less than 10% required a firearm with the rest being just as easily stopped through other readily available means. I couldn't argue that point at all as he had the numbers; raw, statisical, and percentage to back him up and we regularly turn to those reports and assessments, or more precisely to quoted stats from them without actually reading them ourself, to support our cause.

Just like they do, we ignore inconvenient data, whether its outright or by responding with data that supports our cause but doesn't refute the data they presented. We put on our blinders and/or deflect as needed, the same as them.

I'd like to know how they were stopped, sight of the gun, wounded, killed? At first glance to an anti that could read "90% of attackers are killed who didn't have to be." Even if that was the case, I'm not required to accommodate criminals. Going by the gun facts book, something like 80% of crimes stopped with a gun didn't require one shot to be fired. That's less painful than being tazed or maced.