|
Termyn8or -> RE: GUNS (1/1/2011 9:44:07 PM)
|
FR
Let me take this time for some constructive rambling, I'll try to keep it short.
I'll take this as a lesson, I started a thread called "Take it to email", concerning certain arguments in person which flare up because people don't know how to argue. Raised voices, tertiray issues and such get in the way. Now I see the same thing can happen in text. It's pretty clear why that thread didn't get alot of response. (none I think).
Some issues are hot potatoes, and this is one of them. It seems those who preach acceptance, egalitarianism and tolerance have some sort of free floating bigotry, which is bestowed on people who disagree with them. Like a term in psychology back in the 1970s coined was free floating anger. Once in a certain state of mind, people will rip into anything with unneeded fervor, and thus controlled by emotion then lose all their self control. In person, the one(s) with the control can maintain low tones (damn Coneheads movie) and keep things to a mild roar, which helps to make sense, to get the point across. But how do you do that in text ?
Well I would say the first thing would be to refrain from calling people cunts. But some of us remember that sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us. Analyse. What was said ?
Some "cunt"
Believes that killing machines are a good thing.
And has never been raped at gunpoint.
What does that mean ? Is the assertion that she like guns because she has never been raped at gunpoint ? Let's reverse the assertion. She has never been raped at gunpoint. Therefore guns are good ? This is where critical thinking comes in. You see, when you argue important points, it is important to see and try to understand the opposing point of view. Now in my point of view that attitude is completely off base, now that is MY opinion, which of course seems to be shared by others. But that does not make it right. Sure I believe I'm right, and that is not going to change. But I must realize that the opposition is just as reluctant to change their point of view.
Where does that put us ? Unfortunately on eggshells. What we need to remember is the prime reason for an argument in the first place. How many remember what that is ? The reason for an argument is to convince the opposition that your point of view is correct. Your winning is in their admitting. How do we accomplish that ?
Name calling obviously doesn't work, it only serves to alienate the opposition and close their mind.
An accredited psychologist wrote an article on exactly that topic which was published on JPFO.org. It has to do with what is, in psychological terms, projection. It's been explained in countless texts, but the idea is really simple. You think others are just like you. And many if not most of us are guilty of it sometime or another.
To explain - we got a guy like JB here, total anti-gunner. Well it's likely in her eyes (the author of the piece on JPFO) that he thinks that if he had a gun he might shoot someone over a parking space. He can't stand that about himself so he has to assume tht others would, to satisfy his own mental "balance". It's almost like desiring acceptance by peers, but not quite, it goes a bit deeper than that. Humans feel they are right when expressing an opinion, of that there is no doubt, and anything that supports that assumption is grasped for, reached and embraced, while anything to the contrary is discarded almost summarily.
Now, if you are clear on this issue, and cognizant of what is real and what is assumption you must engage in introspection and see if you are falling into the same trap. Therefore let's put the shoe on the other foot. We, the gun advocates have a point, I believe the right point, but if we are to be critical of the viewpoint of the opposition, we must be equally critical of our own.
So you walk into the bar and there sits a guy with gun in holster, hopefully not inbibing too much, and you make assumptions. What are those assumptions ? For one, if the armed individual, practicing open carry in public is still doing it we assume that he/she is doing so legally. While that is not the main point it is relevant. We also assume they are not totally nucking futs and are going to go postal, another assumption. We also assume that they are not one of the people who will shoot you for a parking space. Why do we assume that ? There are several reasons, not the least of which is the person's presence and the fact that they have not shot anyone since we got there.
So we must admit that we make assumptions about others as well. We wielders of the killing machines usually are level headed and do not shoot for fun or out of anger. We assume others are the same. Sometimes they are not the same, and halfway through your Tbone steak they shoot ten or fifteen people. It happens and it can happen again. The triumph of the pro gun argument lies in certain facts. First of all, when someone goes postal halfway through your Tbone steak, they assume nobody else is packing. That assumption on my part is based on the fact that people who kill at random want to kill as many as possible and pick a place to do so where their assumption is most likely to hold true.
Evidence ? Try an armed robbery at a gun store or a shooting range. Make the Darwin awards. Another piece of evidence is that the patrons of such places do not routinely leave a trail of bullet ridden corpses in their wake on the way home. I think the assumption is a fair one, likely true, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an assumption.
Flip the coin. There is one piece of logic on the part of the oppostition that cannot be argued. It is a very simple fact and cannot be denied. If there were no guns nobody would ever get shot. While this is horrendously oversimplified, it is no less true. The fact is that guns have been invented, and many many people know how to make them even of all the gun manufacturers were to disappear tomorrow at sunrise.
They are a fact of life, like a hammer or a knife. Let's take that to a logical conclusion.
A big strong Man can kill you with his bare hands. I know a few and I assure you they have never killed me, not once dadgummit ! Some are untrained, and they use brute force, others are trained and can kill you with quite the economy of force. Put their thumb in just the right place and squeeze, like a trigger. A well trained little old Lady can do it, she doesn't have to be strong. Knowledge is indeed power in this case, that cannot be argued.
This knowledge enables a preson to kill automically, without the aid of a killing tool. His hands are the tool. So to the anti-gunners, after this sinks in to their head, if they believe that guns should be outlawed because it makes killing too easy, would have to similarly believe that martial arts training should be outlawed as well. Let them argue - NO NO NO, it's OK if you kill someone with your bare hands !
You lay the trap, the trap of logic. Ask "Who is deader, the one with the broken neck or the one with the bullet in the brain ? ". The list can go on. The one pushed out of a window, the one run over by a car, the one poisoned, the one beaten to death with a baseball bat. Who indeed is deader than the rest ? Do we outlaw martial arts, or cut people's arms off if they excel at martial arts ? Do we outlaw hammers, baseball bats or any other thing that can kill ?
Their next argument is that all these other potential weapons have "legitimate" uses other than killing. How is killing not a legitimate use ? At three AM when the back door comes crashing down in the kitchen, that 14 speed whatchamacallit that can chop, blend or puree is not the proper "utensil" for the task ahead.
And through projection, those with compassion, even as a burglar who won't shoot the victim unless it is necessary, will think that others are "just like him". I know I am different. But generally, compassionate people who would not shoot unnecessarily think that others would not either.
We must recognize that and address it. We must not resort to nasty name calling. I limit it to whinry hineys, things like that. When I deem someone brainwashed I realize that it is not their fault. If you really believe you are right, what should be your stance ? To convince others that you are right. Right ?
I know that many criminals have guns. I know many of those are desparate, possibly jonesing for drugs, and possibly there to get money to buy same. I myself was involved in a deal a very long time ago, and ironically I didn't use a gun to save my ass. But that doesn't matter, that is one incident. In that case it was not an addiction, it was an attempted robbery, one which would never ever involve the police. I guess it was an addiction - to money. What they were going to use it for was their business. There is a large contingency of the population who will take whatever they can whenever they can, and it's not just drugs that make them that way. It may be an addiction, but to money, not a substance. They exist, and they exist with us.
What the whole thing boils down to is simply whether people should have the means to effectively kill another. Those who think not simply cannot prevent people from killing one another by any means, but the next best thing is taking the guns away. That is all they can do. They are taught that life is so precious, whether it belongs to the one who will cure cancer or the other who will kill your Auntie May at the ATM. It is a hard thing for them to accept my point of view, that these thugs should be excised from society like a fucking tumor, with no remorse whatsoever, and whatever pride derived comes from purifying the gene pool. They see it as a form of privatley adminstered eugenics. And it is.
That is what people across the pond do not understand. We were once proud to be a melting pot, a melding of different cultures into one. But now we are a dumping ground. People coming from extremely opressed lands who are so happy just to only have to work 100 hours a week, with the freedom to go to the bathroom, and enjoy the fruits of our society, no matter how bad it crumbles, because it is better than what they had. People who were born into a life of crime, and probably have practice. They feel so free here it's like getting out of jail, so they are willing to put up wuith almost anything.
Guns have been gone for so long in many countries that people are born now not even knowing the first thing about them. They are afraid of the unknown as well as the known. That results in what is currently termed a knee jerk reaction. What's more they think their mores and ways are correct. Wouldn't you ? They were born into it. Well we were born into a few things that would make my Grandfather load his P38.
Actually the way things are today, if my Greatgrandfather would've forseen them, he might have never got on the boat to come here. But we were born into it. We only see our own lives. History is rewritten at will, oppresors become heroes and the reverse in such cases.
So we have two diametricaly opposing viewpoints in which people are entrenched. If you think you're right, what is the point in pissing people off ? We have JB who has transgressed, if he were to apologize would we accept it ? Could we then proceed in a civil fashion if he learns the error of his ways ? And is that productive ? Will we ever win the argument ? That remains to be seen, but it won't be seen if the argument is called off due to flames.
As much as I disagree, JB is entitled to his opinion. Period. Next step ? JB< "I am sorry I called you a cunt. It was uncalled for but I was all worked up because I feel very strongly about this issue". Where would we go from there ?
Your call.
T
|
|
|
|
