A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

www.therighter.com | Unknown | Sarah Thompson, M. D.

[Ancesthntr]

2nd_Amendment_Defender: Thanks for posting this article - it has been bookmarked. I have never seen a more cogent analysis of why most of those who are anti-gun hold their views (which views I, like the author, view as emotionally or irrationally based). I was especially impressed by the analysis of the manner in which these neuroses develop, and how we can gradually take apart their defenses. This is, as was pointed out by someone else, also a good way to deal with liberals on other issues, liberals being, IMHO, mostly emotional and irrational by nature.

College Repub: I would like to address your characterization of what the author did as "ethnic bashing." Like you, I am also Jewish. My grandparents between them lost over 100 relatives, including siblings, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles and first cousins. My wife's uncle is a Birkenau survivor who witnesses the murder of his father and brother in front of his eyes. I have at least as much reason to be concerned about "ethnic bashing" as you, yet: I read the same article, and I didn't find any such bashing. I believe that the author used the example of the 3 groups in question (Jews, Blacks and women) for a very specific reason, which reason was spelled out in the article. Put simply, outside of specific anti-gun organizations (e.g. the Brady jacka$$es and the Million Morons), these 3 groups have the most effective and strident anti-gun organizations out there. They have masterfully utilized the inherent tendencies of members of their particular groups to feel like victims to psychologically distort the thinking process of their constituents (or hosts, as I prefer to call them). The purpose: to raise money and to build/maintain political power for the organizations (parasites). The author was simply using the best real-life examples of what was being discussed, in order to illustrate the points that were being made. Nothing more and nothing less is going on here.

With regard to Jewish groups in particular, I think that the author was extremely mild and objective. If you haven't already, please visit the website for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). This organization was founded specifically to disarm the "anti-Semite" argument that many Jews and Jewish organizations have used since the Holocaust for the purpose of defeating political opponents (specifically, those who were/are pro-gun). You will see some pretty biting (and truthful) attacks on the major Jewish organizations. By the way, JFPO is pro-gun, not just Jewish pro-gun, so it also attacks non-Jewish individuals and organizations for the same reasons.

I think that you should try to focus more on the main message that the author is trying to convey, rather than nitpick at a couple of phrases or examples. All of us who are pro-gun can learn a lot from this article, and do a lot more toward protecting our liberties, by looking at the entire forest instead of a couple of trees that we might not think are too attractive.

[George W. Bush]

Thanks for posting this article - it has been bookmarked. I have never seen a more cogent analysis of why most of those who are anti-gun hold their views...

Bookmarked here too. I hope it's made the round at the major gun sites. We need to better understand the irrational fears and irrational emotional disorders that drive the anti-gun nuts. I especially like the dysfuntional emotional gratification analysis.

bump

[southland]

ping

[AFreeBird]

B4L8r

[MoogMarphy]

I only want to state a counterpoint. Actually, I don't think I exactly disagree with you guys on anything, I just have a different slant. Here are some points that occur to me as eminently reasonable and I'd like to share them.

The situations that call for the use of firearms in everyday life and thereby justify carrying a concealed weapon are statistically and according to common sense extremely unlikely to arise, even in the scope of a given person's lifetime. On the other hand, the possibility that a person would make a mistake in general is hovering around 100% for a given day. The possibility that a mistake would be life-threatening is unacceptably high when it involves a gun. That is just my personal assessment of the pro-gun argument via self-defense. I really can't imagine any argument against recreational gun use. Though it just isn't very sporting to use a gun to kill something as stupid and defenseless as a wild animal.

Please understand that because of circumstances in my life beyond my control, I've never had the opportunity to understand hunting or concealed weapons as self-defense directly. I am experientially ignorant on the topic and don't mean to offend those of you who are more experienced regarding these topics.

I have a closing thought. Despite that it's a declaration, I mean it only as an expression of my personal belief and not as fact.

"Guns don't kill people...but they make the relative position of a person's index finger way too ****ing important"

[MoogMarphy]

Case in point about how people make mistakes. In the third paragraph of my post I refer to "topic" in the singular and later (correctly) pluralize it. This despite careful typing and a full proofreading!

("c'mon baby the laugh's on me" -Dancing in the Dark by Bruce Springsteen)

I tried pretty hard on this stuff, I hope it means something to someone.

[PLMerite]

bump for later when I can focus.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Mark for later