Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-gun Mentality

[Angry Lawyer]

My uncle's a cop, and they issued him an MP7

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Sulkdodds]

What? The numbers are posted are the example you said to 'why not prove'.

Right. Exactly. You've used numbers to argue your point. Well done. What you haven't done is written an article more full of bullshit than the septic tank of a toreo arena that pointlessly attacks everyone who doesn't agree with it. What's the use? Nobody gives a shit if you think the logic and the numbers are with you when all you're doing is shouting 'ha, these anti-gun people! They're so silly! Amirite? Huh? Huh?" According to you, they could trounce any anti-gun person without resorting to treating the big bag of fallacies as a lucky dip. Attacking or analyzing the person rather than their arguments is ****ing stupid and so's the article, whether you're right or not. It reminds me of the Unabomber:

By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

But at least he admitted he was generalising and that it probably wasn't true of all 'lefties'. :dozey:

Plus, if you wanted to, you could go on a rant about how gun owners are paranoid because they think they need a gun for self defence and so they must believe their neighbours want to murder them. :upstare:

 

[Angry Lawyer]

If your numbers prove your point about guns, then I can prove that the decreasing number of pirates causes global warming. Plot them both on a graph, and you'll notice that the number of pirates has been falling sharply over the last two hundred years - and the global temperature has been steadily rising.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[ríomhaire]

So if "the public" shouldn't be able to (or want to) why should anyone else do their duty for them?
Protecting yourself takes out the middle man and makes it much more effective, if your neighbour can protect you as well then all the better.

If everyone is alone in their own house defenseless then they stand little chance if any situation arises, you can't have an armed police officer or soldier on every street.

When did I say anything about banning guns? Shotguns and rifles are used for hunting and can be used to defend your home.

 

[clarky003]

Sometimes I dont understand the mentality behind it I have to admit, the whole gun culture, 'they have guns so we need guns to defend ourselves' makes sense in a mutual sense.. I mean when you talk about dealing with crime of course, but then what about escalation?

The whole thing with domestic disputes is what bother's me... yes people will most likely hurt people if they are angry or have serious problems, but having guns around just makes it easier to do fatal damage, thats what really doesnt make a whole lot of sense.. yes fine criminal's have guns so you have them too.. but it creates other problems, surely the more guns there are in a society the easier it is for a nut job to do more damage.

But hey the whole system is a giant hypocritical mess, because this is the way I see it... we are supposed to be striving to stop crime all together, yet without crime policing either has giant cut backs or goes out of buisness. Makes you wonder weither we really do want crime to stop or we just want the stats to stay lowish, its just a hudge screwed up cycle, from my point of view atleast.

 

[Some_God]

Damnit Clark, humans love creating and they love destroying. You dont need a gun for that but, likewise, you dont need a gun to commit a crime. A gun is the manifestation of the human will to create, yet its purpose is to destroy.

In conclusion: Good luck on trying to get rid of guns.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Whilst I fully support the civilan ownership of handguns and semi automatic assault rifle copies, I do not support their ownership for self defence. Under British law it is illegal to carry anything if you intend to cause harm to someone with it. The law see's personal defence as having the item with the intention to cause harm to another person. There fore, even if handguns and full bore semi autos were still legal, they could not be used for self defence.

Also, In Britan, if you move a gun in public it must be visibly unloaded, concealed from view and kept in a box/case/gunslip/etc.... So, with these controls in place, why should I not be allowed (for arguments sake) to own a Glock 17 handgun that I keep in a secure gun cabinet, with it's ammunition in another secure cabinet and that I only use the weapon for target shooting?

You will also note that in the cases that led to the reclassification of handguns and semi auto rifles to section 5 (read: baned, section 5 is the same catagory used for things like miniguns) firearms, the weapons used were held illegally.

The bans on these weapons in the UK only had an impact on law abiding gun enthusasts. Since 1997 (the year handguns were banned) gun crime in the UK has increced substantially.

 

[SIGbastard]

When did I say anything about banning guns? Shotguns and rifles are used for hunting and can be used to defend your home.

People hunt with handguns ALL the time. There are even calibers that were developed for this purpose. Now your probably not going to take a dear with a 9mm, but a white tail will go down fast with correct shot placement using a .357 magnum. There's a guy in my class that hunts with his Ruger GP100 .41 magnum fairly often.

 

[SIGbastard]

What some of you guys seem to want would be classified as a "police state". I really don't think anyone would think it was a good idea after they were in a police state.

 

[Nat Turner]

If there is a police force, obviously you are insinuating that the island has some sort of government. I was assuming that the government was not totalitarian, and was democratic in some way. When you said "only police with guns" I figured that this island was completely ridden of all citizenship ownership of weapons besides the police, or the exectutive branch of government.

Having said this, I would feel completely safe in my democratic nation with a strong executive branch.

Obviously, if you give a few random dudes guns on an island, and some of them no guns... it will be completely different. But the word "police" was used, which suggests an entirely different scenerio.


And one thing confuses me here. Some people (not assuming its you, Nat, this just reminds me) seem to believe that if they don't have their trusty sidearm, then the US will turn into some sort of death-patrol totalitarian militant state. Sorry, but I don't think your dinky handgun will save you from a militant overthrow of our pseudo-democratic nation. Seeing as how "they" have an army equipped with tanks, missiles, rocket launchers, explosives, jets, a navy, and all sorts of crazy ass shit that citizens cannot own under and circumstances.

Thah gov'mant ain't gonna take mee!!

That's one view of gun ownership that I've seen. The whole "protection from criminals" thing makes a lot, lot more sense to me, although I still disagree.What kind?

lol, the United States is already a totalitarian state. Banning any firearms doesn't help much.

 

[SIGbastard]

lol, the United States is already a totalitarian state. Banning any firearms doesn't help much.

The government here in the US is definately to big for its britches but I wouldn't call it totalitarian.

 

[JNightshade]

Saying something doesn't make it true, Nat. Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. China is essentially a totalitarian state. North Korea is undoubtedly a totalitarian state. Although it seems as if many politicians are hellbent on transforming America from a democracy into either a theocracy or a totalitarian state, we're still a hell of a ways from that point.

EDIT: Damnit SIG, you beat me >:0

 

[Nat Turner]

The government here in the US is definately to big for its britches but I wouldn't call it totalitarian.

It pretty much is. Just off the top of my head:

I can't drink, I can't smoke pot. If I were to touch a girl's leg on a bus for 1 second I'd be arrested. Then if I can't afford a good enough lawyer I'd be listed as a sex offender. If I have consensual sex with a 15 year old I could go to jail for a long time. Soon I can't travel anywhere outside of the country without a passport. And it would be extremely hard to take all my assets with me if I wanted to.

I can't set up a shop on my lawn or I could get arrested. I can't have 20 people stay overnight in my house or we'd all get evicted, and there's nothing I can do about it. If the government wants to get me, I can't run away. If I got a good job, about half my income would be stolen through taxes. I can't own a pistol. The IRS can drive over and steal my property without a warrant. If someone is robbing my house, I have to run and hide and wait 30 mins for the police, instead of defending my land.

President Bush could start another war, and I'd end up getting drafted. Bush has utter disdain for the Supreme Court, and can do whatever he wants. The government can label me as a "terrorist", thereby taking away my Constitutional rights, and lock me up in prison for years without trial.

 

[kirovman]

Walls have ears, Nat.

They're listening. You don't have much time. Meet me behind the bikesheds at 1am.

 

[short recoil]

It pretty much is. Just off the top of my head:

I can't drink, I can't smoke pot. If I were to touch a girl's leg on a bus for 1 second I'd be arrested. Then if I can't afford a good enough lawyer I'd be listed as a sex offender. If I have consensual sex with a 15 year old I could go to jail for a long time. Soon I can't travel anywhere outside of the country without a passport. And it would be extremely hard to take all my assets with me if I wanted to.

Nat = Sexually rampant, drunken anarchist.

 

[JNightshade]

You can speak your mind. You can google any bad thing the government has done, and find the results.You can print whatever you wish, so long as it's true. You can leave the country.

Many of the things you can't do are for good reason. You can't feel girls up because that's a shitty thing to do. You can't smoke pot because... well, there's no good reason to outlaw it, but hey, I didn't say the US is perfect, did I?

I mean, you're obviously dissatisfied with it, and so am I. But you seem to be confusing a totalitarian state with a government.

 

[Nat Turner]

I mean, you're obviously dissatisfied with it, and so am I. But you seem to be confusing a totalitarian state with a government.

Yes it could be worse, but we're still very totalitarian IMO. There are and have been many governments that are much less controlling than ours. At least in Nazi Germany you could escape the government if you wanted to and had the skills, because they didn't have the awesome tracking technology that our government currently has.

And you can't always speak your mind. It might violate copyright laws.

 

[Nat Turner]

Nat = Sexually rampant, drunken anarchist.

lol, damn straight. :cheers:

 

[short recoil]

Actually i kind of understand what nat means, my take on it anyway is.
"If you don't follow soceity and the government they will make your life hell"

Basically, try to think what happens if you go independant of the government.
You can't really, you're dragged back into it as a totalitarian state.
You don't think of it as a totalitarian existense because you are surrounded by it already.........if i don't want to be part of it what the hell can i do? no personal choice so to speak....i am allowed to do what i want so long as the government lets (wants?) me to do it.

It's all about control.

 

[kirovman]

It's the price you pay for living in society I suppose.

There's always Antartica if you're not happy with governance :cheers:

 

[Nat Turner]

It's the price you pay for living in society I suppose.

There's always Antartica if you're not happy with governance :cheers:

It's not just about the existence of a government, but it's size. Even if they had more ridiculous laws than they already do, it wouldn't be as bad if the government was 1/20th the current size. At least then you might have a chance to fight back against the system. Right now it would be hopeless.

 

[kirovman]

But big governments = more grip on power. And those politicians love power more than anything.

At least then you might have a chance to fight back against the system

No established government wants people to fight the system. And those that do are on a path to self-destruction.

 

[short recoil]

Right now it would be hopeless.

"anti terrorism" prevents any attacks on the government itself, it becomes a bullet proof automaton that cannot be defeated even by a majority of the unhappy population, which is what the government should be there for.

Any steps that make the government closed off, undefeatable and remote are very bad for the people of the state.

I'm hoping it isn't entirely hopeless though nat, you'd be suprised what a few well placed attacks can do to a government, it's like kicking someone in the nuts, however if it gets any worse we're gonna be slap bang in a "tony blair respect and george bush war on terror 1984 nightmare"

They'll never ****ing do me over though, the harder they push on me the harder i'll get.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The defining characteristics of a totalitarian regime, according to Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski's definition which is the one generally used by most academics, are:

1. An elaborating guiding ideology
2. A single mass party, typically led by a dictator
3. A system of terror (ie terroristic police control)
4. A monopoly of the means of communication and physical force
5. Central direction and control of the economy through state planning.

1. This is arguable. People appeal to the 'American way' all the time but fact is, the range of political opinions and ideologies in America is wider than Goatse Man's man-gina. Considering the strength of ideology in most regimes considered totalitarian (where you're not allowed to have any other) I don't think the USA classifies.
2. While the Democrats and Republicans share a lot of similarities, I don't think you could count them as being in cahoots, a 'single mass party'. I think it would matter a little who won. Is your president a dictator? Possibly. Arguable.
3. Again, this is unsure. There are always reports of contraversial shootings, and there's this whole illegal wire-tapping business, a history of nasty violence (Kent State, Birmingham AL). So perhaps you could say this one was true, but nowhere near as surely as you could with, say, Soviet Russia.
4. I don't think this is true. For means of communication, you have the internet and private companies. Physical force? HEL-LOOO, you have GUNS.
5. Probably not.

Being too young to drink or own a handgun and not being able to harass some random woman on a bus does not a totalitarian dictatorship make. So your case is pretty shaky at best. I'd say it looks as if America might be moving towards a totalitarian regime...maybe...one day. Unless someone else gets elected who takes it in the opposite direction.

Note that this is an outsider's view. I'd be far more capable of telling you to what extent Britain is totalitarian, because I live here.

 

[Top Secret]

This isn't an argument - it's written SOLELY for people who agree with her. What a slag. Fail.

You know, if you had actually read the article, she said it wasn't intended for anti-gun activists. Good job. :thumbs:

 

[Crushenator 500]

Knives are much more satisfying

Obviously someone who's never been in, seen, or generally had anything to do with a knife fight/ attack...

 

[Some_God]

Obviously someone who's never been in, seen, or generally had anything to do with a knife fight/ attack...

Obviously.

 

[Yuri]

Man, Nat, you're off your rocker.

Well, either that, or you're just as asshole. Probably the latter.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Right. Exactly. You've used numbers to argue your point. Well done. What you haven't done is written an article more full of bullshit than the septic tank of a toreo arena that pointlessly attacks everyone who doesn't agree with it. What's the use? Nobody gives a shit if you think the logic and the numbers are with you when all you're doing is shouting 'ha, these anti-gun people! They're so silly! Amirite? Huh? Huh?" According to you, they could trounce any anti-gun person without resorting to treating the big bag of fallacies as a lucky dip. Attacking or analyzing the person rather than their arguments is ****ing stupid and so's the article, whether you're right or not. It reminds me of the Unabomber:

But at least he admitted he was generalising and that it probably wasn't true of all 'lefties'. :dozey:

Plus, if you wanted to, you could go on a rant about how gun owners are paranoid because they think they need a gun for self defence and so they must believe their neighbours want to murder them. :upstare:

Valid points but it's fairly clear the article isn't meant to persuade. I think that's what most people are missing here. No one said it was a debate article.

It's more addressed to the neutral crowd or those already in camp. It's a question of "Why do they think these things? Let's get some ideas out there so we know what's fueling what we're up against." It's a dissection of the anti gun movement. Flawed or not is the question, but when you view it as speaking amongst yourselves about an opposing group, rather than TO them, it gets a lot less pompous and arrogant and makes more sense.

You have to realize that to me and I'm sure countless others, it's VERY hard to understand the mindset and WHY people hold the views they do, many of which to me seem absolutely illogical, crazy, and downright wrong. There's got to be some attempt to look at why, and this is one of them.

 

[Yuri]

Obviously someone who's never been in, seen, or generally had anything to do with a knife fight/ attack...

Really? I thought he was "obviously someone who is joking." :|

 

[ricera10]

I think everyone in this discussion should read The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell.

 

[Laivasse]

double post, shag

 

[Laivasse]

This isn't an argument - it's written SOLELY for people who agree with her. What a slag. Fail.

You know, if you had actually read the article, she said it wasn't intended for anti-gun activists. Good job. :thumbs:

Are you congratulating me? Thanks. Proven right. The slag probably realised halfway through what a load of balls it was and dropped a qualifier in there, "oh btw, this is just for my friends lol".

 

[Top Secret]

Are you congratulating me? Thanks. Proven right. The slag probably realised halfway through what a load of balls it was and dropped a qualifier in there, "oh btw, this is just for my friends lol".

You people do realise this isn't a persuasive essay, yes? It's an essay on how to be persuasive.

 

[Laivasse]

You people do realise this isn't a persuasive essay, yes? It's an essay on how to be persuasive.

Whatever it is it's a waste of time to any intelligent person.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Whatever it is it's a waste of time to any intelligent person.

Not really, it was quite a good read. It's very hard to understand why someone could hold such views and this delves into that area.

 

[Sulkdodds]

...and you really think that article explains anything about anyone's mentality other than that of the person who wrote it?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Yes it does. I'm sure some people have other reasons for being completely wrong, but this helps explain the reasoning of quite a lot of them.

 

[jondy]

...and you really think that article explains anything about anyone's mentality other than that of the person who wrote it?

It says a great deal about the people who lap it up :|

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, the ironic thing as that a real psychologist worth her salt would have a field day analyzing that thing.

There's nothing intelligent about it. Rather, it's basically stating that being anti-proliferation (AKA being jewish, female or black) is a mental illness suffered by borderline psychotic gradeschool retardates.