Half-Truths By The Anti-Gun LobbyCited As "News"

[Guest Swamprunner]

» Gun Control Advocates Make up Facts about Concealed Handgun Laws - Big Government

I think most folks are hip to their trip.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Truth seems to get redefined often these days. The anti's don't seek the

truth. Just part of an agenda.

[Guest DanE479]

No matter how hard we try, there are some that will remain convinced that if guns dissappeared, violence would too. It just doesn't track...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's because some people are stupid.

[Guest DanE479]

I disagree. It's not stupidity, it's an inability to grasp the fundamental natures of violence. All violent acts can be traced back to a couple of basic root causes:

1: Profit motive. The majority of crime is committed to achieve some kind of profit. Theft is obvious and easy. Rape's profit comes in the the sense of satisfaction felt by the rapist over the sucessful domination over someone else. 9/11 was a profit motivated crime. The profit motive in terrorism is to try and intimidate the victims into changing a political or social policy. Domestic violence fits into this category as well. The profit in domestic violence is the domination of the victim; the using of force to acheive a desired outcome (shutting the kid up, getting the house cleaned, etc). Domestic violence can also have its roots in cause #2 (see below). When trying to understand (solve) a crime, the first question shold be "Who Profits?" This category encompasses the notion of "lazyness" as well. Criminals are, by nature, lazy. Profit driven crime, for the most part, is someone's attempt to make profit easier than it would be to legally earn it.

2: Mental defect. It's as simple as it sounds. Some people are just not wired right. There's not understanding them, and no curing them. Jeff Dahmer is a great example. This category also include true temporary mental imparement. THe guy that comes home and finds his wife screwing the neighbor, and is so enraged that he kills both of them. It's not right, and not an excuse, but it is a mental defect none-the-less. That guy did something that is normally out of his character because he was presented with an extreme emotional situation. Impairment due to intication also falls into this category. The intoxication causes a mental defect that overrides the social norms instilled by scociety to not do harm to others.

Items 1 and 2 are not necessarliy mutually exclusive. I have yet to find a crime committed that does not fall into one of those two categories

There will always be people that cannot understand that as long as someone has more than someone else, crime will be present (and that factors out category #2).

I say that it's not always stupidity because I have some close friends that are extermely smart, but lack the real world experience to understand the nature of violence.

Sometimes it IS stupidity, sometimes it's willful ignorance (worse than stupidity), and sometimes it's just an inability to grasp some pretty heavy concepts that run counter to the philsoiphies that you have been surrounded with your entire life (Which isn't the same as stupidity). The solution to getting people to understand why lawful peapole carrying lawful firearms is a good thing is to find out where that person is coming from in thier arguments, and talk to them from that perspective, and attack their arguments from the perspective that they are used to. Going into these discussions with the precept that "they're just stupid because they don't get it" can get in the way of educating that person.

Then again, there are people that just refuse to concede any argument, and want to remain willfully ignorant of the facts because they see the world through an ingrained filter, instead of the nasty, messed up place that it is (or, as in the case of Mayor Daley of Chicago, want to restrict weapons in order to excercise control over large amounts of people to satisfy his ego).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wouldn't argue with most anything you said, because those are all

good points.

But those people that are well educated and see the studies by Lott

and others, like the FBI, and still remain on the anti side are stupid,

or politically motivated to do what's not in the best interests of our

society. To argue against self defense one would have to submit in

order for another for another to protect(be a subject, instead of a

citizen). I imagine there are those that would just as soon be like

that, but those people are still stupid to me.

Your statement is a good analysis, though.

But understanding violence isn't necessary. There are reams of

documents and studies about violent behaviour, yet none of it has ever

reduced crime. There have been different approaches to reducing

crime, yet it still exists. Prisoner programs to rehabilitate violent

criminals has shown very little success, in other words, failure.

Understanding what makes a criminal do what they do and why they

do it may be useful, but I imagine it's most useful in catching criminals

after they have performed an act.

When it's all said and done, a person who will not defend himself will

become a subject to another, or just die.

It may just lay on the way I use the word "stupid" and nothing else. An

educated rational mind trapped in a corner will eventually come out

swinging, if he has the chance.

[Guest DanE479]

For me, understanding violence, and it's motivations, is about avoiding violence. I use this knowledge to not oly avoid places that would put me into a bad situation, but to also help diffuse potentially violent encounters. When I can understand the root motivations of someone's actions, I can better manipulate him into an outcome that benefits me more than him.

[mikegideon]

If you read and comprehend everything there is to know about violence, and your conclusion is that banning guns is the solution, then you're stupid. Old idea... been tried a million times... never works.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

For me, understanding violence, and it's motivations, is about avoiding violence. I use this knowledge to not oly avoid places that would put me into a bad situation, but to also help diffuse potentially violent encounters. When I can understand the root motivations of someone's actions, I can better manipulate him into an outcome that benefits me more than him.

Then, what you are really saying is you are using this

understanding to be more aware of your surroundings.

That's fine, but how does this play into the antis being

smart or stupid? I still say they are stupid or politically charged, and mostly just useful idiots for someone else.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest chaplain tom]

Sorry I'm in here late on this one, but I found this thread to be quite amusing. I have to laugh at these people who have their heads tucked away in some dark smelly place. (I'm talking about the anti-gun sheeple.)

This topic reminds me of an episode of an old sitcom.

Gloria had quoted some stupid and obviously embellished stats on how many people had been killed by guns in the US the previous year.

Archie Bunker had this to say in response, "Would it make you feel any better 'little goil' if they was pushed outta widows?"

Edited September 2, 2010 by chaplain tom