Skip to comments.How To Get Inside the Mind of Someone Who Wants a Disarmed Population
Posted on 05/31/2018 5:33:52 AM PDT by marktwain
There are a significant number of people in the United States who have chosen to be unarmed, and who want the government to ensure as many others are forcibly disarmed as possible. They are a small, but vocal minority. To most people in the gun culture, this is an alien mindset.
It is worthwhile to understand people on the other side of an argument. The left is routinely attempting to shout down and silence people in the gun culture; one of the strengths of Second Amendment supporters is the willingness to engage with people who want most people in America forcibly disarmed.
There is a simple way to understand how most people who want you unarmed think.
Make the internal assumption, for the sake of understanding them, that you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed. It is not that hard to do. Being armed requires effort. You have to choose to be responsible. You have to practice self-discipline. You practice safety and train. You think about unpleasant possibilities and plan for them. In many states, becoming armed takes considerable legal effort. You have to devote time and money to be armed.
Once the decision has been made to be unarmed, many arguments on the other side become understandable. Unarmed people are often uncomfortable around armed people. Armed people have a significant power advantage over unarmed people. Many unarmed people do not want to be reminded that armed people have more personal power. To avoid this, they want to force other people to be disarmed.
This explains why some unarmed people dislike concealed carry, but absolutely hate open carry. Open carry forces them to reflect on the power differential they have chosen. It reminds them of an unpleasant reality.
People are more accepting of information that reinforces their personal choices. If you have chosen to be unarmed, you want to hear news items that validate your choice. If a health professional tells you that keeping or bearing arms makes you less safe in your home and on the street, you will have an intrinsic bias to believe them.
If a politician proposes that restrictions be placed on gun owners and gun buyers, it makes perfect sense to you. You do not own a gun or intend to buy a gun, so these proposals are perceived to be without personal cost. The costs are born by people who have chosen to be armed. It is hard to overemphasize this point: people, by nature, are willing to impose costs on other people, if they do not have to pay anything themselves.
Any restriction on people being armed will appear to be positive. The fewer armed people for you to contend with, the better. It does not matter how stupid the restriction, how draconian, how expensive, how ineffective it will be. The deliberately unarmed perceive the personal costs to be zero. Less guns, less fear of an imbalance of power on your part.
If you have chosen to be unarmed, you probably do not have much knowledge about firearms and firearms technology. Learning and knowing about firearms is one of the costs that people avoid by choosing to be unarmed. When gun owners point out technical mistakes in articles and legislation concerning guns, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic- who cares? You are not interested in guns, so technical distinctions are considered unimportant.
Because you have chosen to be unarmed, you know you need an armed protector to keep you safe. That would be the government. To make such a choice, you assume that government is benevolent, concerned with your safety, and available in time of need. It helps to assume the need for an armed protector is minimal. Thus, unarmed people constantly attempt to minimize the need for armed protection.
This explains the arguments put forward to claim that crime is not a problem, the government could never become tyrannical, attempts to minimize the danger of wild animals and the desire to minimize government ineffectiveness during emergencies. It explains why so much effort is expended to discredit the number of times firearms are used for self defense and to prevent crime.
The decision to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost of being armed, and perceived low benefits to being armed. Every successful example of self defense works against that perception.
Several methods to counter the mind-set of the deliberately unarmed are effective. All work to show benefits of being armed (or allowing others to be armed) and the costs of being unarmed.
One of the strongest is to convince deliberately unarmed people that having armed citizens makes them safer rather than less safe. They need to know that legally armed citizens are not a threat, but actually prevent crime that threatens them.
People who obtain carry permits have been shown to be more law abiding than police officers. They have stopped numerous crimes and some mass killings. They have saved police officer lives. This information supports the idea that armed citizens are significant protectors of unarmed people; that they are assets, rather than a danger. Being polite and reasonable during personal or Internet discussions helps to promote this thought.
Much of the propaganda from those who want a disarmed population is aimed at creating the impression that armed citizens present a net cost, rather than a net benefit.
Reducing the cost of being armed makes an unarmed person more willing to see being armed as a potential choice. If you can bring an unarmed person to a range, and insure they have a pleasant experience, you will have significantly increased their information about being armed. Having that information decreases their perceived cost of being armed. Have them shoot a .22, while wearing hearing protection, rather than a .44 magnum, without.
Another way to reduce the perception of the costs of being armed is to educate them about the tremendous strides made in reducing fatal firearm accidents in the United States. In the last 90 years, fatal firearm accident rates have been reduced by 94%. Most people do not know that.
Showing unarmed people that being armed might be useful in the future gives them an incentive to keep their options open. The key is to educate them about problems that being armed can reduce or solve. This should be done in a non-threatening way. Giving them examples of individuals who used arms to defend themselves, their loved ones, or social order, can be very effective. Explain that these stories are routinely spiked by the national media.
The desire to be armed is virtually genetic. Something as simple as watching a movie in which being armed makes a positive difference, connects deeply with people at a very basic level.
Many who are unarmed by choice simply took the easy road, without much thought or reflection. They can be reached with gentle persuasion.
A second approach is to show them that disarming the population is not cost free. If people who wish to disarm the population realize there can be severe personal and societal costs to population disarmament, it changes the cost-benefit analysis significantly. Predictions of armed resistance, guerrilla war based on Second Amendment violations, and examples of the horrible violence that erupts when civil order breaks down, are very effective.
One of the effects of this approach is to moderate the tactics used by those who want to disarm the population. When registration of modern rifles is required by law, the national guard is not mobilized and sent on door to door searches. Instead, the 80-95 percent of people who choose civil disobedience and do not register their guns, are ignored. At least for the next few years. This puts the battle into the election booth and the courts instead of on the streets.
It is worth while to remind people that there are over 400 million private firearms in the United States. Those who want the population disarmed often attempt to minimize the number of firearms in the United States and the number of armed citizens in the country.
A third tactic is to show those who wish the population to be disarmed, how this violates the rule of law and the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This is a powerful argument, which is why those desiring an unarmed population spend so much time attacking and misrepresenting the Second Amendment.
A fourth tactic is to show physical limits of government bans on firearms. Do this by showing how simple it is to evade those restrictions. Show how easy guns are to make, how tribesmen with little technology make guns with ease; how criminals in places with strict gun control still have access to guns and ammunition; how hobbyists routinely make guns and ammunition; how gun technology is really a 14th century technology. It is hard for those who wish the population disarmed to argue physics and engineering. Those tend to be strong suites of the gun culture, and weak positions of those wishing us disarmed.
The gun culture has the Constitution, the facts, physics, and basic human nature on its side. It is only when the information flow is suppressed that those who wish the population disarmed, win. That is why restrictions on gun ownership and use are rushed through the legislature. it is why those opposing the Second Amendment oppose First Amendment rights. If deliberate thought and careful argument take place, Second Amendment supporters win.
In the United States, above almost the entire rest of the world, citizens have the choice to be legally armed or unarmed. Most people in the U.S. wish to keep that option. Most of the rest of the world does not have it.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Thought the answer to the headline was “ a pointy stick”
It is easy to get into the mindset of the gun grabbers.
Watch Schindler’s List.
A person who has chosen to be unarmed a naive idiot who actually believes the world is all unicorns and flowers.
I do not carry a pistol so I can impose my will on someone else.
I carry a pistol so someone else cannot impose their will on me.
Why in the world would I want to get inside the mind of a libtard? Seriously. The LAST place I would ever want to find myself. Personally, I am a short step from demonstrating my position on the issue by threatening to shoot them. Maybe that will convince them of the idiocy of their arguments. If threatening to shoot them demonstrates the foolishness of their position it might actually be a good idea as distasteful as I personally find it.
What is “gun culture”?
Perhaps, Mr Weingarten, YOU retain that willingness...alas, I do not.
Trying to talk with these people and present a coherent, reasonable argument, when the person is totally incoherent, unreasonable, vulgar, nasty, violent and just plain damned stupid...well, it ain't my cup o' tea no more.
I will simply ignore them and continue on with my life.
If, by far flung chance the blooming idiots succeed in further infringing on my rights, then I shall simply become an outlaw.
I want no discourse with the moon-bat dummies.
Well done, Sir.
I just want them to not drip stupidity drool near Me or My Family. Im too Old, Grumpy, Hurt and Sick of them to put up with them anymore.
Blissninny is an appropriate term I picked up from Jerry Pournelle that well-summarizes that.
They are violent, espouse violent fantasies and wish to commit violence against those that are different or with whom they disagree.
Therefore, the "others" must be much, much worse...
You said that much better than I did.
I WILL be spending my time with My New Grandson making sure that He learns the Truth and Facts.
I Pray I will be around long enough time see Him to Adulthood...
It’s called, “my country would never commit such attrocities”. Which is funny since such people talk out both sides and consider Trump the greatest evil next to Satan.
“Gun culture” is a term invented by liberals to define a subset of the population whose views they find abhorrent.
It is a component of the class war & culture war being waged against those whom Hillary named the “basket of deplorables” and whom Obama would term “bitter clingers”.
Google “change gun culture” and then, “America’s love affair with guns”. A rich lore of antigun prejudice and hatred, especially in the British sites.
I don’t have time to read this right now, but drive through the hoods in virtually any large Eastern city and look at the people...like it or not, they are SCARY. And you know what’s more scary, the thought that they may have guns.
Many people are terrified and still have to interact with these people, such as on subways/buses, etc. It affects them and I’m convinced that’s a major factor in their gun control position...along with not being able to imagine our government degenerating to the level of the UK, for example, where people are jailed for confronting attackers during a home invasion, or jailed for trying to report on a trial that the government demands be blacked out from coverage.
Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one....Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.
The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.
The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.
Thus, talking to antigunners who view gun control as part of a liberal Sharia Law is largely futile.
“Gun culture” is something invented by Liberals. It is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want it to be.
We need to negotiate the same way. First “demand”...all persons must carry a firearm. They want complete disarmament. We ask for complete armament. Discussion ends there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.