# Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality



## KenpoTex (Sep 20, 2006)

I found this article on another forum, unfortunately there's not a link to the original article so I had to post it all.  It's *very* long but, IMO, worth reading.


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

By Sarah Thompson, M.D. 
righter@therighter.com

"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you." 

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games." 

"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns." 

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me." 

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? 

How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? 

One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them. 

Defense Mechanisms

Projection 

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1 

How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection &#8211; unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him. 

Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him. 

Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6 

All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways. 

Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them. 

This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8 

(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.) 

Denial 

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence. 

Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder. 

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable. 

Reaction Formation 

Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister. 

Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them. 

This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues. 

Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" &#8211; or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man. 

In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.
(next page)


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 20, 2006)

(cont.)
Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses

Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill". 

Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17 

Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control. 

Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit. 

Defense mechanisms distort reality 

Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms. 

People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21 

The Common Thread: Rage

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. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood. 

Identity as Victim 

If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be: 

(1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims." 

(2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims." 

(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization. 

Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality. 

Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim? 

I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims &#8211; not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure. 

In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged." 

Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders 

Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs. 

Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24 

Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless. 

Victimhood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless &#8211; and therefore dependent. 

Anti-gun groups love victims! 

From my observations, pro-victimhood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities. 

If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free.
(next page)


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 20, 2006)

(cont.)
The psychological price of being a victim 

In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously  and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression. 

But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life. 

So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy". 

Say NO to being a victim! 

But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people. 

Communicating with anti-gun people

How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind. 

Anger and attacks do not work 

Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from such places  but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive. 

It's not helpful to attack the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions. 

Be Gentle 

You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day. 

As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life. 

Reversing Irrational thoughts

The Mirror Technique 

One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position. 

Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses. 

Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies. 

It's important to ask "open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership. 

The "What Would You Do?" Technique 

Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so. 

Don't try to "win" the argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people  who should not be trusted with guns! 
(next page)


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 20, 2006)

(cont.)
Defusing Emotional reactions

The "You Are There" Technique 

Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts. 

One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?" 

Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses. 

The Power of Empathy 

Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person. 

Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur. 

Not very pleasant, is it? 

This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace)  and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib or sarcastic, this won't work. 

Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent. 

This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children". 

You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work! 

Corrective Experiences 

Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing. 

For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated "redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal, socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions. 

If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers. 

As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably. 

For example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship  a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc.  you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach. 

First-hand experience 

Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience. 

First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety. 

Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk! 

Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand. 

Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces. 

In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll recruit a new firearms enthusiast. 

But even if your guest decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows  a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner.
(next page)


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 20, 2006)

(cont.  last one, I promise )
Why these techniques do not always work 

You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered. 

You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31 

Conclusion 

By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety. 

Educating others about firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun. 


© 2000, Sarah Thompson. 

Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter, www.therighter.com, a monthly column on individual rights. 

Notes 

1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999. 

2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2. 

3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20. 

4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433. 

5 Brenner 1973. P. 91. 

6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432. 

7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137. 

8 "Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000. 

9 Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 

10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. [Analyzes the law in 54 U.S. jurisdictions]; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) [no federal constitutional right to police protection.] 

11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187. 

12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. 

13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 

14 Brenner 1973, p. 85. 

15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 [fascism exalts nature, animals and environment]. 

16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54. 

17 Brenner 1973, p. 92. 

18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219. 

19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410. 

20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12. 

21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system." Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093. 

22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14). 

23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12). 

24 Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance". 

25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999. 

26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000. 

27 "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a. 

28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5. 

29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37. 

30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217. 

31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Permission is granted to distribute this article in its entirety, so long as full copyright information and full contact information is given for JPFO. 
Copyright © 2000 Sarah Thompson, MD 

Published by 
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. 
P.O. Box 270143 
Hartford, WI 53027 
Phone (262) 673-9745 
www.jpfo.org


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 20, 2006)

Good article.  Thanks for posting that.

Jeff


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 20, 2006)

very informative article  
I'll need to reread it to get all of it


----------



## Lisa (Sep 20, 2006)

Excellent reading.  Thanks.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 20, 2006)

All and all, great article. It is a bit more psychoanalytical then I usually care to get, but psychoanalytics is great for understanding etiology. She toes the line a bit when referring to certain ethnic groups as victims groups, but that doesn't make the core of her argument less valid. Hopefully, people can get past that, and other issues that they may get personally hung up on to read the article objectively. 

Paul


----------



## pstarr (Sep 20, 2006)

Great article!  Thanks!


----------



## Ninjamom (Sep 21, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> All and all, great article. ...........toes the line a bit when referring to certain ethnic groups as victims groups.....doesn't make the core of her argument less valid.


My thoughts exactly.

Thanks, kenpotex, for sharing the article.


----------



## arnisandyz (Sep 21, 2006)

Thanks for posting that...good read. I'd give ya rep points but i've already given you guys too many! (says I need to spread it around).


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 21, 2006)

I should also add that I think that the broader collective problem is more simplistic then the article details; that is the societal pathological lack of personal responsibility. It is related to a "victims mentality" but not quite the same. 

We live in a society right now where collectively people shirk personal responsibility. People expect that the police will defend them, the schools and daycare will raise their kids, city workers will keep their community clean, doctors and psychiatrists will give them drugs to make them feel better, and so on. It's really an entitlement mentality that people have adopted. It has gotten to the point where people would rather trade freedom (letting others of perceived authority tell them what to do) then take personal responsibility. It is this chosen "powerlessness" that is projected to others. This is why most people would rather have armed guards police everyone around then allow people the right to carry; or at least that is the way they would rather have it in places they feel should be "safe" (schools, hospitals, etc.).

So, most aren't out there actively fighting against the right to carry. What most people do is sit back apathetically, expect others to take care of things like self-defense, and then project that apathetic powerlessness on to others. "Why do we need people to walk around armed all the time? Crime rates have gone down." "If something happens, that is what the police or security is for." Etc., etc. So, these aren't those who are actively trying to strip us of our carry rights. These are the majority who is too apathetic to care, who easily buy into bad anti-gun information (because they'll let others think for them), who don't even look at the issue when at the voting booth (if they vote at all), and who will only address it when the issue comes up, in which case they project their chosen path of powerless apathy and unwillingness to take responsibility for themselves and their environment.

So, my take is that it is a powerless apathy that plagues most in society. It is like the "victims" mentality that the author described, but it isn't exactly the same. I am not sure that the etiology or the issues of unconsious rage fits all or even most people, while a powerless apathy certainly seems to be a universal ill and not confined by culture or race in our country (US).

Paul


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

First off, I want to state up front that I am not an advocate of disarming citizens of the US.  I grew up hunting and shooting and don't see any reason to outlaw these activities, and I recognize the value a firearm can have in self defense.  The right to own weapons is a pillar upon which our nation was founded, and part of the wisdom in this is that an armed population is better able to keep the government in line.

However, I actually found the article to be very poorly written.  It had a clear political agenda and really comes across as little more than propaganda for those against gun control.  

The opening example of this person who sent her an email expressing his fear that his neighbors might shoot him, sets the tone for the rest of the article.  Suggesting that his fear is really a projection of his own desire to kill others is silly.  This is a glaring example of why I personally find psychoanalysis to be a silly endeavor.

Suggesting that anti-gun people harbor more rage than others is also silly.  I live in San Francisco and I know a lot of them.  They aren't enraged.

While it is legal to own and carry firearms (assuming you are licensed to carry) I honestly see little need for it.  Sure, you can do it, it's your right, and it's important to defend that right.  But most everyone has no need to carry, especially all the time.  

Sure, crime happens and it always will.  But I personally see the notion of carrying a firearm, at least all the time, as being based on fear.  Fear of being a victim, fear that someone will attack you as you walk down the street, and I just don't see life as being all that dangerous.  You learn to identify the dangers that are out there and then they are pretty easy to avoid.  

There may be some times when it is appropriate to carry.  Maybe you need to go into a dangerous area for business reasons or something.  OK, that's fine.  But for the average person who thinks they need to be armed all the time, I think that is just silly, or worse, paranoid.

In short, I guess I'm saying that I don't object to the right to be armed.  I don't object to people being armed.  I just think that people need to use common sense and recognized that in most cases, it is not necessary.  The world isn't all that dangerous.

I'm not here to start a fight with the gun group.  But I thought I'd add another perspective.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 21, 2006)

Flying Crane, I agree with a lot of whay you say about the article, but I do have to disagree with one thing you bring up.

If you carry a firearm for defensive purposed, you should carry it all the time, not just when you feel you might need it.  Violent crimes happen outside of the "bad neighborhoods" all the time.  Violent crime is down in the U.S., but more and more of the ones that are commited involve a weapon of some sort.  The old adage of having and not needing really applies.

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Flying Crane, I agree with a lot of whay you say about the article, but I do have to disagree with one thing you bring up.
> 
> If you carry a firearm for defensive purposed, you should carry it all the time, not just when you feel you might need it. Violent crimes happen outside of the "bad neighborhoods" all the time. Violent crime is down in the U.S., but more and more of the ones that are commited involve a weapon of some sort. The old adage of having and not needing really applies.
> 
> Jeff


 
I understand your point, and I don't dispute that crime happens.  But I do believe that the media distorts the severity and frequency of violent crime.  We are conditioned by the media to believe that we are constantly in danger, and I just don't believe that and that's why I believe for most people it is unnecessary to carry.  Again, I don't dispute the right to carry, I just think most people have absolutely no need to.

Check out the news that gets reported.  What gets reported?  Shootings here, shooting there, robberies, kidnappings, rapes.  But what they don't report is that 350,000,000 people today in the US were not attacked in any manner, and were not threatened with bodily harm in any manner.  But this isn't exciting news.  The news reports are sensationalized, so they focus on the negative.  Shootings and violence get attention, so that is all they show.  If all we ever did was watch the news, we would think our streets are constant sites for gun battles.  But it isn't true.

And most confrontations that don't make it into the news are small scale and are resolved without the use of firearms with little or no injury to either party.  Having a gun on hand under those circumstances just might make someone another statistic, when it doesn't have to end this way.  

You might be attacked or accosted in some way someday.  Maybe under the law, and under the circumstances, you might be within your rights to shoot the person.  But that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

I have had people accost me on the street a few times.  No weapons were involved (at least none that were displayed, and I don't carry).  I would have had every right to pound the punk into the ground and would have a very defensible case in court if he tried to sue me.  It would be clear self-defense.  But I refused to engage and the situation was diffused and nobody was hurt.  If I had a gun, maybe I would have shot him.  But I didn't, and I don't think it was necessary, even if I would have been within my rights.

Just advocating a different way to look at things, that's all.  Just because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean you SHOULD.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> I understand your point, and I don't dispute that crime happens.  But I do believe that the media distorts the severity and frequency of violent crime.  We are conditioned by the media to believe that we are constantly in danger, and I just don't believe that and that's why I believe for most people it is unnecessary to carry.  Again, I don't dispute the right to carry, I just think most people have absolutely no need to.
> 
> Check out the news that gets reported.  What gets reported?  Shootings here, shooting there, robberies, kidnappings, rapes.  But what they don't report is that 350,000,000 people today in the US were not attacked in any manner, and were not threatened with bodily harm in any manner.  But this isn't exciting news.  The news reports are sensationalized, so they focus on the negative.  Shootings and violence get attention, so that is all they show.  If all we ever did was watch the news, we would think our streets are constant sites for gun battles.  But it isn't true.
> 
> ...


Once again Flying Crane, you have said much that I agree with.  A lot of (irresponsible) people will do the "I have a hammer so every problem looks like a nail" when I comes to carrying a firearm.  The few times I've had mine out as a civilian in a SD situation, I didn't have to shoot.  Shooting someone (or using unarmed combatives) SHOULD be done only as a last resort.

One specific thing you said though, I do wholeheartedly disagree with though.  Chances are, if it's within my rights to shoot someone, that means my life, or the lives of people I care about, is in imminent danger.  Then it would be the right thing to do.

That being said, let me re-iterate that there is a whole lot of what you say that I do agree with.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 21, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I should also add that I think that the broader collective problem is more simplistic then the article details; that is the societal pathological lack of personal responsibility. It is related to a "victims mentality" but not quite the same.
> 
> We live in a society right now where collectively people shirk personal responsibility. People expect that the police will defend them, the schools and daycare will raise their kids, city workers will keep their community clean, doctors and psychiatrists will give them drugs to make them feel better, and so on. It's really an entitlement mentality that people have adopted. It has gotten to the point where people would rather trade freedom (letting others of perceived authority tell them what to do) then take personal responsibility. It is this chosen "powerlessness" that is projected to others. This is why most people would rather have armed guards police everyone around then allow people the right to carry; or at least that is the way they would rather have it in places they feel should be "safe" (schools, hospitals, etc.).
> 
> ...


 
+1 Paul. Reminded me of this little gem.



> Rule 1: Life is not fair, get used to it.
> 
> Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
> 
> ...


 
Our "touchy feely" education system is producing a citizenry who have more "self seteem" than common sense.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 21, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.


 
The way I intend to present this to my son is, "I gave you countless examples of what _not_ to do!  Weren't you paying attention?"


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Once again Flying Crane, you have said much that I agree with. A lot of (irresponsible) people will do the "I have a hammer so every problem looks like a nail" when I comes to carrying a firearm. The few times I've had mine out as a civilian in a SD situation, I didn't have to shoot. Shooting someone (or using unarmed combatives) SHOULD be done only as a last resort.
> 
> One specific thing you said though, I do wholeheartedly disagree with though. Chances are, if it's within my rights to shoot someone, that means my life, or the lives of people I care about, is in imminent danger. Then it would be the right thing to do.
> 
> ...


 
I appreciate the dialog.  Thank you.

Ya know, I think what it really boils down to is responsible vs. irresponsible gun ownership, including carrying.  

The article discussed the gun-phobics, people who are afraid of a gun and think the tool itself is somehow evil. I agree, this is irrational.  A gun is a tool like any other.  There is a responsible way and an irresponsible way to handle it.  If it is handled responsibly, there is nothing wrong with it. 

However, what the article did not address is the opposite: the Gun-ophiles.  There are those that are just in love with guns and other weapons (I'm a bit of a sword-ophile myself, but I don't carry unless I am on my way to a training session, but I can certainly understand the interest in weaponry).  I have seen postings in this forum by people describing their second and third backup firearm, in addition to the half-dozen combat knives they carry stashed away on various parts of their body.  And these are people who are not even law enforcement personnel.  I just don't get that kind of mentality.  If you want to carry, and you do it legally and have quality training with your weapon, I don't see anything wrong with that.  But turning yourself into a walking arsenal every day of the week, when you don't even work in law enforcement just seems somehow twisted and at least inappropriate.  Sure, I guess it's legal, but it doesn't strike me as smart.

Maybe these are the ones the gun control advocates think of when they try to enact legislation limiting or eliminating gun ownership.  

Honestly, I have nothing against guns and I even enjoy shooting, but that is the kind of person I would stay away from because it makes me nervous.  Not the weapons themselves, but the mentality behind a decision to carry that way.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> And most confrontations that don't make it into the news are small scale and are resolved without the use of firearms with little or no injury to either party. Having a gun on hand under those circumstances just might make someone another statistic, when it doesn't have to end this way.
> 
> You might be attacked or accosted in some way someday. Maybe under the law, and under the circumstances, you might be within your rights to shoot the person. But that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.


 
Feel free to bet your life on that. As long as Im not forced to take the same gamble. Someone who legally carries a gun all the time is no different IMO than someone who carries a folding knife all the time. As a matter of fact according to a few threads here, the guy with the knife is MORE dangerous than the guy with the gun right?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Feel free to bet your life on that. As long as Im not forced to take the same gamble. Someone who legally carries a gun all the time is no different IMO than someone who carries a folding knife all the time. As a matter of fact according to a few threads here, the guy with the knife is MORE dangerous than the guy with the gun right?


 

well, we all make our own choices about it.  I choose to not carry.  It works for me.

I'll make a suggestion, just for kicks, for those who carry all the time:  If you don't work in Law Enforcement where carrying a gun is necessary, try leaving it home for a week.  Just to see how you feel about it.  I'd be interested in hearing some feedback.  Personally, I think I would find carrying it all the time a bit burdensome.  Maybe a few people will consider it and give it a try.  I'd love to hear about it.

As far as knives go, I agree, in certain curcumstances they can be more dangerous than a gun.  I don't find it necessary to carry a knife either.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 21, 2006)

Legal carry is more about the mindset of being prepared and responsible than it is about fear IMO.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Legal carry is more about the mindset of being prepared and responsible than it is about fear IMO.


 

I sincerely hope so.  While I may never see a need to carry, at least this indicates a healthier mindset than fear does.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 21, 2006)

I tend to agree with Flying Crane.  The author is using psychobabble and fear-mongering to convince people who don't want to carry that they should - even that they are being irresponsible when they don't.  The symptoms that the author lists are actual psychological syndromes, and I don't dispute that - I do, however, dispute some of the conclusions the author comes to.  Certainly, there are people who have issues with projection, denial, reaction formation, and so on - and some small portion of them may actually avoid guns because of those issues.  I don't dispute that either.  What I do dispute is that *every* person - or even *most *people - who choose not to carry guns have a psychological ailment as a reason.  I know lots of people who don't own guns; I know lots of people who know how to use guns who don't  own guns; I know lots of people who own guns who don't carry; I know a very few people who own guns and do carry - mostly for reasons relating to their jobs.  

As FC said, if you want to carry, and you are legally allowed to do so, that's your choice; for myself, I don't feel I need it.  Those who carry may think I am naive; they may agree with the author of this article and think I am displaying one, or several, psychological symptoms; however, according to gunsafe.org (just so no one accuses me of using statistics from anti-gun sites):


> What fraction of U.S. residents owns firearms?...28%


 Now, if the author is correct, then 72% of U.S. residents are demonstrating one, or several, psychological symptoms, solely because they choose not to own guns.  Somehow, I have my doubts that this could be the case for that large a number of people.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 21, 2006)

Good points Kacey.

I read it as not applying to everyone who doesn't own or carry a gun, but upon re-reading it, I can see, and even agree with your interpretation.  There are people in both camps who are motivated by fear.

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

Kacey said:


> The author is using psychobabble and fear-mongering to convince people who don't want to carry that they should - even that they are being irresponsible when they don't....


 
Yeah, the thing with this article, being written by a Psychiatrist, is that it implies this Doctor is in a position to analyze as an entire group of people across the nation, everyone who is pro gun control.  And that diagnosis is: some form of mental disorder.  It is misleading to the extreme and the examples used are very poor.

It goes on to read like an infomercial, listing off a bunch of ways to discuss gun issues with those mentally diseased people who are anti-gun.  Well I'll tell ya what folks, those techniques could be used equally well in reverse, against the gun-rights people.  The whole thing had a feel like I was being sold on a multi-level marketing scheme.

As a gun rights advocate, I actually found the whole article insulting.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Good points Kacey.
> 
> I can see, and even agree with your interpretation. There are people in both camps who are motivated by fear.
> 
> Jeff


 
Agreed.


----------



## matt.m (Sep 21, 2006)

You know I am not naive, I understand the importance of guns.  However, I have used firearms extensively.  Being a Marine Corps vet I have even shot people while overseas.

I suppose this is exactly why I don't own a firearm, I know what they can do to people.  I also know that the vast majority don't have nearly as many hours behind firearms that I do and that makes me very nervous.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> I sincerely hope so.  While I may never see a need to carry, at least this indicates a healthier mindset than fear does.


I think it is. I dont carry all the time either, but when I do its not out of fear of being attacked but rather just being prepared and ready. I actually did the "leave your gun at home for a week" test (someone else advocated it as well) and I felt the same, except one thing happened that I thought had the real possibility of turning ugly quickly and I had the thought that I wish I had carried that day and it made me realize that I never want to be in a situation needing the gun wishing I had it. So I generally keep it with me. I go to school and put it in the glove box of my car, carry it on my person at night when going to the store etc. I view it the same as my fighting training, I'm not doing it out of fear, but just being prepared for whatever may come my way. I see the concealed handgun as just another step towards a more complete state of preparedness, thats all.

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

7starmantis said:


> I actually did the "leave your gun at home for a week" test (someone else advocated it as well) and I felt the same, except one thing happened that I thought had the real possibility of turning ugly quickly and I had the thought that I wish I had carried that day and it made me realize that I never want to be in a situation needing the gun wishing I had it. So I generally keep it with me. I
> 
> 7sm


 
I appreciate the feedback.  May I ask: what were the circumstances that made you wish you had the gun, when you did not?  Maybe I somehow live a sheltered life here in San Francisco, but even when I have been hassled in the street, I have never felt like I wished I had a gun to deal with the situation.  Thx.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 21, 2006)

Oh, I forgot about that.

There have been several ocassions when I didn't carry for a week or longer.  Usually visiting my relatives, most of which live out of state.

First thing you notice is that it's a LOT more comfortable with out a hunk of steel or polymer digging into your sides.

I did have this nagging feeling of oh hell, now something bad is going to happen, and my pistols are miles away.

But now I can carry there, so it's not an issue.

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Oh, I forgot about that.
> 
> There have been several ocassions when I didn't carry for a week or longer. Usually visiting my relatives, most of which live out of state.
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough.  I guess I've never had that nagging feeling that something bad is going to happen.  I dunno, I guess it's just not how I see things, maybe.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 21, 2006)

Good discussion everyone!



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> But I personally see the notion of carrying a firearm, at least all the time, as being *based on fear*.
> 
> But for the average person who thinks they need to be armed all the time, *I think that is just silly, or worse, paranoid.*
> 
> ...


Flying Crane, you said that you found the article misleading and insulting because of the author's practice of characterizing gun-control advocates as people who have some sort of psychological disorder, or at least some serious issues with fear. However, in the portions I quoted from some of your posts, You make the same characterizations about those who choose to go armed every day. 




			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I'll make a suggestion, just for kicks, for those who carry all the time: If you don't work in Law Enforcement where carrying a gun is necessary, try leaving it home for a week. Just to see how you feel about it. I'd be interested in hearing some feedback. Personally, I think I would find carrying it all the time a bit burdensome. Maybe a few people will consider it and give it a try. I'd love to hear about it.


Why would I choose to leave my most effective self-defense tool at home? I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. My weapon is not a security-blanket or a teddy-bear.  I don't carry it because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.  In fact, I'll admit that it's a real pain in the *** sometimes to have 2 of 3 pounds or extra weight on my belt. However, I choose to carry it because I never want to find myself in a situation where I am not *as prepared as I can possibly be* to deal with a threat to my safety or that of someone who I feel a duty to protect.


----------



## Lisa (Sep 21, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough.  I guess I've never had that nagging feeling that something bad is going to happen.  I dunno, I guess it's just not how I see things, maybe.



FC, I completely understand that feeling.  I too have never had that feeling nor have I ever been faced with a situation where I wish I had been armed.  Guess I am lucky (knock on wood)  However, I also don't have the idea that the police will always be around to protect me, thus the reason I have an alarm system in my house, a big dog and other things in place to protect my home and my children.

I have no problem with the right to carry.  I have a problem with the fact that I am not allowed that right, don't get me started on that one .  Don't know if I would if I could, just would like the opportunity to decide for myself.  I am pretty sure my husband would have one, whether or not he carried everywhere is questionable.  

I see it as a personal view of need.  If you feel the need for that type of personal safety you should have the right to use it.  If you don't then that should be okay too.  Doesn't mean you have hidden psychological problem or fear mongering.  Just means your experiences in life have cultivated you to think and see things a certain way.

Good discussion by the way.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 21, 2006)

> I see it as a personal view of need. If you feel the need for that type of personal safety you should have the right to use it. If you don't then that should be okay too.



That is really what it boils down too. There is nothing wrong with choosing to not carry a firearm, just as long as you own up to your personal choice and are willing to accept the consequences of that action. Same if you choose to carry.

The part that is a bit dysfunctional is when people want to project their own personal choice on someone else. Yes, there are some people of a very small minority of pro-gun advocates who don't seem to respect a personal choice to not carry. But, let's not try to paint everything with a broad brush for the sake of political correctness here. There are many people in comparison who choose not to carry who don't respect a persons choice to carry, and in fact want to take that right away or put limits on that right according to their worldview. One has to ask why that is.

The author has given a few reasons why certain individuals would choose to be anti-gun, even in the face of logic and overwhelming evidence against the position. His view is relatively accurate in many cases, but not all or even in most cases. I also gave what I feel is a relatively accurate reason why people choose to take an anti-gun stance; one that I feel fits more appropriately to the majority as it reflects a societal epidemic that permeates more then just the so called 'anti-gun world'.

I have seen a lot of straw men so far in this thread, but no statement to logically refute either position.

On a different but related note, one has to also ask why people choose to misinterpret the authors message or argument? Can someone point to where the author is saying that all people who choose not to carry should choose differently even if they do so irresponsibly, or that all people who choose not to carry have a psychological ailment? He is giving psychoanalytical reasoning for a segment of the populace who advocate victim disarmament; a fairly good assessment, but not one that is meant to fit every individual.  So, why would some of you who choose not to carry interpret this as an attack on others like you?

Also, one has to ask, why someone who chooses to carry, who is choosing to take responsibility for his/her own self-defense, would be painted by those who don't carry as "paranoid" and "fearful." Why can't the answer simply be, "I choose not to carry because I don't want the hassle, and I am willing to accept those consequences?" Why does it have to be an entire rigimarol about how there isn't that much crime out really, or how those who are usually armed are not intelligent, or how just because a shooting may be justified that doesn't mean it is right, or how it's a good thing (for some illogical reason) I wasn't armed that day I was accosted and so maybe you all should choose to not be armed as well, and so on, and so on?

It is one thing to choose to not be armed and be willing to accept the responsibility for that choice. It is entirely another thing to make that choice, and then impose that choice and its reasons on everyone else.

And if that is what you are doing, then you need to seriously ask yourself what YOU might be projecting, as the article addressed.

Paul


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2006)

*Good discussion everyone!*


*Flying Crane, you said that you found the article misleading and insulting because of the author's practice of characterizing gun-control advocates as people who have some sort of psychological disorder, or at least some serious issues with fear. However, in the portions I quoted from some of your posts, You make the same characterizations about those who choose to go armed every day.* 

A fair observation.

*Why would I choose to leave my most effective self-defense tool at home? I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. My weapon is not a security-blanket or a teddy-bear. I don't carry it because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. In fact, I'll admit that it's a real pain in the *** sometimes to have 2 of 3 pounds or extra weight on my belt. However, I choose to carry it because I never want to find myself in a situation where I am not as prepared as I can possibly be to deal with a threat to my safety or that of someone who I feel a duty to protect*.

Just offering a different perspective, and suggesting an experiment to see if it makes any difference in how you see things.  Take it or leave it, it's your choice, of course.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2006)

I appreciate the dialog and feed back and contributions from everyone.  

Since I personally don't understand the need to carry all the time, I guess my motivation here is really to try and understand what makes people feel this way.  It seems the most prevalent answer is simply to be as prepared as possible, in the event it is ever needed.  OK, I can accept that.  I still don't agree that it is necessary, but at least I can understand where people are coming from.  And of course that is just how I personally feel.  I never suggested that I wanted to take the right to carry away from others, so long as they follow safe practices, have quality training, and proper permits to do so.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2006)

*That is really what it boils down too. There is nothing wrong with choosing to not carry a firearm, just as long as you own up to your personal choice and are willing to accept the consequences of that action. Same if you choose to carry.*

Full agreement.

*The part that is a bit dysfunctional is when people want to project their own personal choice on someone else. Yes, there are some people of a very small minority of pro-gun advocates who don't seem to respect a personal choice to not carry. But, let's not try to paint everything with a broad brush for the sake of political correctness here. There are many people in comparison who choose not to carry who don't respect a persons choice to carry, and in fact want to take that right away or put limits on that right according to their worldview. One has to ask why that is.*

Yeah, gottta agree here too.

*On a different but related note, one has to also ask why people choose to misinterpret the authors message or argument? Can someone point to where the author is saying that all people who choose not to carry should choose differently even if they do so irresponsibly, or that all people who choose not to carry have a psychological ailment? He is giving psychoanalytical reasoning for a segment of the populace who advocate victim disarmament; a fairly good assessment, but not one that is meant to fit every individual. So, why would some of you who choose not to carry interpret this as an attack on others like you?*

Actually, if you go back and reread the descriptions of the Defense Mechanisms, there is a tendency by the author to describe the mechanism and then state "Anti-gun people do this".  It comes across sounding like this is a diagnosis being applied to all, or at least most, anti-gun people, and I dont think that is accurate or a fair assessment.  And given the medical credentials of the author as a psychiatrist, I think it implies a certain authority to make these judgements, but I think it is a gross exaggeration.  It gives me the impression that the author is using his credentials to push a political agenda by making dubious claims.  In my opinion, that is irresponsible.

*Also, one has to ask, why someone who chooses to carry, who is choosing to take responsibility for his/her own self-defense, would be painted by those who don't carry as "paranoid" and "fearful." Why can't the answer simply be, "I choose not to carry because I don't want the hassle, and I am willing to accept those consequences?" Why does it have to be an entire rigimarol about how there isn't that much crime out really, or how those who are usually armed are not intelligent, or how just because a shooting may be justified that doesn't mean it is right, or how it's a good thing (for some illogical reason) I wasn't armed that day I was accosted and so maybe you all should choose to not be armed as well, and so on, and so on?*

Well, I think it is easy to infer that someone who wishes to be armed all the time is afraid of something, or worse, paranoid.  Carrying a weapon for self defense implies that one is concerned that they might be attacked at any given moment, in any location.  This can easily be interpreted by others as a fear of the world around him.  That was my motive in getting involved in this thread - to see if I could get some clean answers and understand this issue better.  I think I have, and I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this in a courteous manner.

*It is one thing to choose to not be armed and be willing to accept the responsibility for that choice. It is entirely another thing to make that choice, and then impose that choice and its reasons on everyone else.*

For me, I never suggested that I wanted to impose my own personal decision on others.  I still disagree with the desire to carry all the time, I just don't see it as necessary.  But I don't wish to take that right away from others, and I respect the choice to carry so long as it is done responsibly, safely, and legally.

*And if that is what you are doing, then you need to seriously ask yourself what YOU might be projecting, as the article addressed.*

I really don't think anyone is projecting anything, on either side of the argument.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 22, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Actually, if you go back and reread the descriptions of the Defense Mechanisms, there is a tendency by the author to describe the mechanism and then state "Anti-gun people do this". It comes across sounding like this is a diagnosis being applied to all, or at least most, anti-gun people, and I dont think that is accurate or a fair assessment. And given the medical credentials of the author as a psychiatrist, I think it implies a certain authority to make these judgements, but I think it is a gross exaggeration. It gives me the impression that the author is using his credentials to push a political agenda by making dubious claims. In my opinion, that is irresponsible.


 
I do see your point. I don't think his claims are dubious, but I do think that he may be over-generalizing, as I have stated before. I think that his assessment may fit for some people, but certainly not all or most people.



> Well, I think it is easy to infer that someone who wishes to be armed all the time is afraid of something, or worse, paranoid. Carrying a weapon for self defense implies that one is concerned that they might be attacked at any given moment, in any location. This can easily be interpreted by others as a fear of the world around him. That was my motive in getting involved in this thread - to see if I could get some clean answers and understand this issue better. I think I have, and I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this in a courteous manner.


 
This is where our opinions differ. 

Objectively speaking, an attack may happen to anyone at any moment, even if it isn't likely. This is a fact, not really a subjective opinion. Some people deal with this fact by increasing their preparedness. This could mean arming oneself with something, taking self-defense courses, and so forth. That is one way of handling it. Some may choose to be armed all of the time because to them it represents freedom and personal responsibility for their own defense and for that of their environment. Others may choose to arm out of paranoia or antisocial behavior; but I don't think it is fair to assume that this is the majority of CCW/CPL holders. 

And others may choose not to be armed out of denial, or a victim's mentality, or a lack of personal responsibility. Others may choose not to be armed due to a spiritual ideal and resolve, or simply because it is a hassle and not practical for them.

In all cases, as long as one is willing to be responsible for their choice and not impose it on others, then I cannot say, at least on the surface, that one is flawed for making that personal choice.

So, in the same sense that it wouldn't be fair to judge everyone who chooses to not carry a weapon as being irresponsible or in denial, it wouldn't be fair to judge those who are armed at all times as fearful or paranoid. 

Case in point, we can look at Sikhism.

Sikhs, as part of their spiritual beliefs, are armed all the time. Usually it is with an ornate and traditional knife; some are armed with the traditional knife and firearms as well. They are armed at all times, according to their religion.

In Canada, there was some controversy because a high school student wanted to carry his traditional knife in school when he became of age in tradition to do so, but the rules wouldn't allow it. In an interview, his response was interesting. He said [paraphrase], "Our people aren't violent, and the tradition is not a violent one. We carry our traditional armament because in our culture it represents freedom."

You see, in Sikhism, the philosophical belief is that every male (and some females take this option as well) has the responsibility of defending themselves, their families, and their communities. It isn't about paranoia of fear for them; the traditional armament (of which they are bound to use if defense is needed) represents the freedom of defense and the responsibility to do so for them.

Interesting to note that regardless of this ideal, Sikhism is a very peaceful religion. This is especially in comparison to Muslim, Hindu, and Christian histories and beliefs.

I don't think that we can typecast all Sikhs as being fearful or paranoid for their beliefs. Nor, do I think we can typecast the armed citizen in that way either. 



> For me, I never suggested that I wanted to impose my own personal decision on others. I still disagree with the desire to carry all the time, I just don't see it as necessary. But I don't wish to take that right away from others, and I respect the choice to carry so long as it is done responsibly, safely, and legally.


 
And for that, I respect your opinion, even where we differ. 

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 22, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> I appreciate the dialog and feed back and contributions from everyone.
> 
> Since I personally don't understand the need to carry all the time, I guess my motivation here is really to try and understand what makes people feel this way. It seems the most prevalent answer is simply to be as prepared as possible, in the event it is ever needed. OK, I can accept that. I still don't agree that it is necessary, but at least I can understand where people are coming from. And of course that is just how I personally feel. I never suggested that I wanted to take the right to carry away from others, so long as they follow safe practices, have quality training, and proper permits to do so.


 
Sorry, I somehow missed this post.

Just wanted to say thanks for your opinion and discussion. Even when not everyone agrees, there can still be an open discussion about things where the goal is understanding of each others point of view. It is very nice when that happends. Thanks again!


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I do see your point. I don't think his claims are dubious, but I do think that he may be over-generalizing, as I have stated before. I think that his assessment may fit for some people, but certainly not all or most people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Good points all around. Thanks for taking part!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 23, 2006)

Odd you should mention Sikhism, I just had a class about it. It is actually a pretty impressive religion and I would be happy to have them as neighbors. Heres a website about them that I was given in this class.

http://www.sikhs.org/khalsa.htm

Very tollerant, hardworking and pious group of people with a strong sense of equality, justice and defense of the oppressed.


----------

