Maverick9
Regular Member
Anti-gun advocates and gun control pundits play a game of argument by fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)
They find a position at the extremes (often to further a political or false agenda), then cherry pick whatever arguments and "hysterical falsehoods" they think they can get away. Thus is typical of the narcissistic personality.
But there are other specific mechanisms in play.
Delusional (magical) thinking, illogic, incomplete analysis, emotive (il)logic. For example 'I was in a situation where someone produced a firearm, and being insane, killed people around me. I am therefore against all firearms and I want those who carry them to be jailed, killed, neutralized and I want to do this by making a law that I can hide behind and not have to face the fact that insane people exist and there's really little defense'.
Perceived dilution of entitlement. LEOs are on record saying that when they came out of the academy with their firearm
Competition for dominance - Those in power, bullies, narcissists all think it is about them. They want to maintain their dominance and resent to the point of violence, their ability to control and assert their needs and rights over everyone else. The big bully fears the small person who might successfully resist their ability to steal your rights and individuality. The more capable you are, the less they are able to maintain the illusion of their own right, might and presence.
Logic tight compartments - They refuse to budge out of their own contrived dogma. 'Who needs a gun in a church'. You point out that churches are robbed, people are assaulted in parking lots and it has no effect on their opinion.
Deceit, deceptive commentary - these types have a free-floating list of pre-scripted 'arguments', false constructs, all designed to garner emotional support from those unwilling to think for themselves.
Projection, transference, reflection - They are full of rage, they want to be able to act on that, yet they fear consequences should their victim be able to fight back. Or they project this rage on others and fear the consequences if their reflection had deadly force capabilities.
Criminals, thugs - they fall into the bully compartment, opportunists who want to get their way and wish all resistance to be removed, and are in favor of laws they know won't affect them. Include politicians here.
Hysterical predictions - the prototypical ‘the streets will run with blood if we pass shall issue…’. Another argument by fallacy, straw-man arguments and so on.
This is by no means an exhaustive list but it hits some high points.
Finally, why do we try to understand the anti-arguments? I think if we get a handle on the popular methods they use we can be prepared to explain them away, but we already know that anti-s aren’t swayed by argument or logic, so one wonders if it’s a waste of time. Maybe it will help someone explain, convert, sway a family member and make them part of the SD team? If so it’s worth discussing.
They find a position at the extremes (often to further a political or false agenda), then cherry pick whatever arguments and "hysterical falsehoods" they think they can get away. Thus is typical of the narcissistic personality.
But there are other specific mechanisms in play.
Delusional (magical) thinking, illogic, incomplete analysis, emotive (il)logic. For example 'I was in a situation where someone produced a firearm, and being insane, killed people around me. I am therefore against all firearms and I want those who carry them to be jailed, killed, neutralized and I want to do this by making a law that I can hide behind and not have to face the fact that insane people exist and there's really little defense'.
Perceived dilution of entitlement. LEOs are on record saying that when they came out of the academy with their firearm
Competition for dominance - Those in power, bullies, narcissists all think it is about them. They want to maintain their dominance and resent to the point of violence, their ability to control and assert their needs and rights over everyone else. The big bully fears the small person who might successfully resist their ability to steal your rights and individuality. The more capable you are, the less they are able to maintain the illusion of their own right, might and presence.
Logic tight compartments - They refuse to budge out of their own contrived dogma. 'Who needs a gun in a church'. You point out that churches are robbed, people are assaulted in parking lots and it has no effect on their opinion.
Deceit, deceptive commentary - these types have a free-floating list of pre-scripted 'arguments', false constructs, all designed to garner emotional support from those unwilling to think for themselves.
Projection, transference, reflection - They are full of rage, they want to be able to act on that, yet they fear consequences should their victim be able to fight back. Or they project this rage on others and fear the consequences if their reflection had deadly force capabilities.
Criminals, thugs - they fall into the bully compartment, opportunists who want to get their way and wish all resistance to be removed, and are in favor of laws they know won't affect them. Include politicians here.
Hysterical predictions - the prototypical ‘the streets will run with blood if we pass shall issue…’. Another argument by fallacy, straw-man arguments and so on.
This is by no means an exhaustive list but it hits some high points.
Finally, why do we try to understand the anti-arguments? I think if we get a handle on the popular methods they use we can be prepared to explain them away, but we already know that anti-s aren’t swayed by argument or logic, so one wonders if it’s a waste of time. Maybe it will help someone explain, convert, sway a family member and make them part of the SD team? If so it’s worth discussing.