TexasCHLforum.com

This is just a thought.
The anti's are constantly talking the same stuff, over and over.

1. The streets will run red with blood; they already are, with the blood of innocent victims.

2. It will become like the Wild West; that may not be a bad thing as long as it is the Bad Guys on the losing end.

I see this matter a little differently. You are correct about the same talking points over and over again, regardless of glaring contradictions in the facts. For me:
1. There are a few single issue anti-gun groups like the Brady campaign. Most of the rank and file antis are multi-topic and the underlying theme is consistent across the topics: they want to control everyone else's actions. The streets will be red with blood because of guns, thousands will die of emphysema if all coal fired power plants are not shut down, millions will die of obesity if McDonalds continues to sell kid's meals with toys.

2. Antis have direct contact with the source of all truth that the rest of us lack. In a campus carry thread on a college forum, an anti determined for all of us that the solution to attacks on campus was pepper spray. It would somehow miraculously stop armed attackers in their tracks. When a specific discussion about the rape of the CHL who was forced to disarm on campus was brought up, he "just knew" that she would have repelled her armed attacker with pepper spray. Because he was so closely tied to the source of truth, he prediction about alternate outcome of that rape were more accurate than anyone else. When it was suggested to him that he could make his own decision about pepper spray, he confirmed that no one could be allowed to make a different assessment of that situation and select a firearm instead.

Much of obesity is not about eating. Many, like me, eat under stress. If I remove the source of the stress, I don't have to try to deal with it by eating more than my body requires. I see the anti situation in much the same way. The majority of the issue isn't really about guns. While there are some antis with an irrational fear of firearms, for most of them is is really a control issue. They cannot allow the 2nd amendment to stand unchallenged because it would acknowledge rights that we have that cannot be controlled. They are all for the freedom of speech - as long as the message is theirs. Otherwise, they want to enact legislation that would control radio talk shows and the Internet on content.

redlin67 wrote:2. It will become like the Wild West; that may not be a bad thing as long as it is the Bad Guys on the losing end.

Supposedly the Wild West didn't have as many gun fights as Hollywood makes every one think.

Thomas wrote:

redlin67 wrote:2. It will become like the Wild West; that may not be a bad thing as long as it is the Bad Guys on the losing end.

Supposedly the Wild West didn't have as many gun fights as Hollywood makes every one think.

And since it included Missouri and Kansas, among others, the "Wild West" was a lot farther east than most people think.

And the murder rates in Boston and NY City were far higher in the same era.

Thomas wrote:

redlin67 wrote:2. It will become like the Wild West; that may not be a bad thing as long as it is the Bad Guys on the losing end.

Supposedly the Wild West didn't have as many gun fights as Hollywood makes every one think.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert Heinlein

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert Heinlein

Amen!

Thomas wrote:

redlin67 wrote:2. It will become like the Wild West; that may not be a bad thing as long as it is the Bad Guys on the losing end.

Supposedly the Wild West didn't have as many gun fights as Hollywood makes every one think.

Yep. You're 45 times more likely to be murdered today in Baltimore than you were in several of the Wild West cities.

chasfm11 wrote:I see this matter a little differently. You are correct about the same talking points over and over again, regardless of glaring contradictions in the facts. For me:
1. There are a few single issue anti-gun groups like the Brady campaign. Most of the rank and file antis are multi-topic and the underlying theme is consistent across the topics: they want to control everyone else's actions. The streets will be red with blood because of guns, thousands will die of emphysema if all coal fired power plants are not shut down, millions will die of obesity if McDonalds continues to sell kid's meals with toys.

2. Antis have direct contact with the source of all truth that the rest of us lack. In a campus carry thread on a college forum, an anti determined for all of us that the solution to attacks on campus was pepper spray. It would somehow miraculously stop armed attackers in their tracks. When a specific discussion about the rape of the CHL who was forced to disarm on campus was brought up, he "just knew" that she would have repelled her armed attacker with pepper spray. Because he was so closely tied to the source of truth, he prediction about alternate outcome of that rape were more accurate than anyone else. When it was suggested to him that he could make his own decision about pepper spray, he confirmed that no one could be allowed to make a different assessment of that situation and select a firearm instead.

I think 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin. Which comes first: the urge to impose their will or the belief that their special access to the "truth" requires their will to be imposed? I tend to think the majority of such people are wired in a way that they can't live with themselves unless they can believe they're smarter than everyone else. Since they're smarter than everyone else then people who see things differently than they do must be wrong, and it only makes sense to them that those lesser people be compelled to do the "smart" thing, which is after all, only in their own best interest. They have sort of a perfect personal delusion, since they can believe they're not only smarter than everyone, but "better" in the sense of being more altruistic, and hence, more "moral." Everyone else is not only stupid, but selfish.

VMI77 wrote:I think 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin. Which comes first: the urge to impose their will or the belief that their special access to the "truth" requires their will to be imposed?

Kind of like Al Qaeda and American legislators who enacted (and/or haven't repealed) Blue Laws.

According to what I have heard not only was the "wild west" not that wild, but if you did get shot you were more likely to die from infection(due to a lack of antibiotics and aseptic techniques) than the actually bullet wound.

Anti gun people tend to think in hypotheticals and spend their time trying to argue scenarios that have very little plausibility in real situations while pro gun people tend to argue logic and have the data to back it up.

Anyone in N Texas on 1/1/1996 saw an above the fold story in the the Dallas Marxist News quoting politicians in Dallas as saying blood would run in the streets. For the young ones, that was the first day of concealed carry in Texas.

Simple question: Why did people carry guns in the frontier West? Were they all looking for a daily kill, or something to steal? Or, were they just trying to survive? People are people, whether it's the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, etc. or today. We're just trying to survive. Try to imagine the scene of a frontier society where no one was allowed a gun (it would have to be an imaginary scene, of course). It would be devoid of people. The wacky folks are not those who carry guns. The wacko folks are those who deny a person's natural right of self-defense. Whether someone carries a gun is a personal choice.

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I see this matter a little differently. You are correct about the same talking points over and over again, regardless of glaring contradictions in the facts. For me:
1. There are a few single issue anti-gun groups like the Brady campaign. Most of the rank and file antis are multi-topic and the underlying theme is consistent across the topics: they want to control everyone else's actions. The streets will be red with blood because of guns, thousands will die of emphysema if all coal fired power plants are not shut down, millions will die of obesity if McDonalds continues to sell kid's meals with toys.

2. Antis have direct contact with the source of all truth that the rest of us lack. In a campus carry thread on a college forum, an anti determined for all of us that the solution to attacks on campus was pepper spray. It would somehow miraculously stop armed attackers in their tracks. When a specific discussion about the rape of the CHL who was forced to disarm on campus was brought up, he "just knew" that she would have repelled her armed attacker with pepper spray. Because he was so closely tied to the source of truth, he prediction about alternate outcome of that rape were more accurate than anyone else. When it was suggested to him that he could make his own decision about pepper spray, he confirmed that no one could be allowed to make a different assessment of that situation and select a firearm instead.

I think 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin. Which comes first: the urge to impose their will or the belief that their special access to the "truth" requires their will to be imposed? I tend to think the majority of such people are wired in a way that they can't live with themselves unless they can believe they're smarter than everyone else. Since they're smarter than everyone else then people who see things differently than they do must be wrong, and it only makes sense to them that those lesser people be compelled to do the "smart" thing, which is after all, only in their own best interest. They have sort of a perfect personal delusion, since they can believe they're not only smarter than everyone, but "better" in the sense of being more altruistic, and hence, more "moral." Everyone else is not only stupid, but selfish.

I am of the opinion that the control issue is a deeply seated psychological inability to deal with the world as it is. There are several observational interpretations of this basic idea, but I think they can be divided into two main categories. Either category leads to the same conclusion....

The secular observer's interpretation: The controlling subject person is unable to accept that the world is chaotic and random in nature, and that he/she is powerless to prevent bad things from happening to themselves.

The religious observer's interpretation (which happens to be my own): The controlling subject person is unable to accept that God is in control, not he or she, and he/she must depend on some outside greater power to protect them from bad things.

In either interpretive paradigm, since the subject person is powerless to prevent bad things, he/she feels compelled to impose draconian reductions in the personal liberties of others, and consequential rigid controls over the behaviors of others as a means of compensation, under the delusion that chaos/randomness or other bad things will not visit him/her.

The problem is that the subject person's default assessment assumes guilt on the part of everyone else, and requires all innocence to be proven—except their own. Innocence can only be proven to the subject by the other person's willingness to give up those liberties under which the controlling subject person feels threatened. The realistic subject person—whether your take the secular or the religious interoperation—understands that that humans are endowed (either naturally or by Nature's Creator depending on one's secular/religious bent) with certain inalienable rights and liberties.

The religious observer who is not burdened by a need to control all things accepts that because humanity is accountable to a Presence bigger than itself, we are each individually responsible for our own decisions, and we are each personally accountable for the results of those decisions. If we act unjustly, we will be dealt with justly.

The secular observer who is not burdened by a need to control all things accepts that because humanity is accountable to itself according to commonly held standards in existence for millennia, we are individually responsible for our own decisions, and accountable for the results of those decisions. If we act unjustly, we will be dealt with justly.

Either interpretation leaves the controlling person feeling out of control over the outcome of events, and so they are compelled to enforce a draconian standard on everyone else in a compensatory effort to hold the forces of chaos at bay. In other words, they have rejected objective reality, and they substitute whatever subjective reality is necessary to make them feel safe without having to take any personal responsibility for that safety. It is denial at best, and mental illness at worst. (AND, it is why "zero-tolerance" solutions are such an unmitigated disaster.)

atticus wrote:Simple question: Why did people carry guns in the frontier West? Were they all looking for a daily kill, or something to steal? Or, were they just trying to survive? People are people, whether it's the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, etc. or today. We're just trying to survive. Try to imagine the scene of a frontier society where no one was allowed a gun (it would have to be an imaginary scene, of course). It would be devoid of people. The wacky folks are not those who carry guns. The wacko folks are those who deny a person's natural right of self-defense. Whether someone carries a gun is a personal choice.

Add to that the fact that law enforcement (if one can really use that term) was a "few and far between" situation back in the old West. If a person didn't protect themselves they had no one else to do it for them.

Good point about law enforcement. Example: when my wife's people emigrated from Texas to the Arizona territory in the 1800s, the nearest law enforcement was a deputy U. S. marshall 2-3 days' ride away. The gun was a necessity for self-defense. Same holds true today. Whether you have to wait 2-3 days for law enforcement, or just 2-3 minutes, the assault is already underway. Even 2-3 minutes is an eternity. Law enforcement's job is often taking pictures, talking to witnesses about a completed crime, and writing out the police report on a crime scene.