A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

[mog75]

It's an old article, but I just saw it. Seems to explain alot.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Permission is granted to distribute this article in its entirety, so long as full copyright information
and full contact information is given for JPFO. Copyright © 2000 Sarah Thompson, MD
Print Friendly and PDF


"You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
"I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns."
"I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

Interesting article. I only copied the first two paragraphs because I'm not sure how much cut & paste is allowed here. Regardless the article kind of describes some of the people who have driven me away from posting much here.

[Scuba]

1. I've never heard the first, 3rd or 4th statement from anyone advocating limits on gun ownership.

The second one comes true all too often to be ignored.


http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Argument-over-parking-space-leads-to-shooting-in-2432826.php#ixzz1kOs5XfFt

http://espn.go.com/chicago/story/_/id/8854510/chicago-teen-tyrone-lawson-fatally-shot-high-school-basketball-game

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/17/michael-dunn-loud-music-murder-sentence/17433007/

[mog75]

2. They are just

Copied & pasted from the article. Also if this thread isn't allowed here let me know and I will delete it, or move it to GCRA or whatever is required.

[Scuba]

4. Oh no, this post is definately in the right place.

There's a reason this forum is known as the "Gungeon".

[NYC_SKP]

3. I've never heard that fourth one, but the others are common in various forms. nt

[Fred Sanders]

5. The second one is said and said because it is the one that is true.

[mog75]

6. Link?

[Fred Sanders]

7. Drink?

[mog75]

8. I do drink on special occasions.

Do you have any links to shootouts over parking spots and baseball games?

[mog75]

9. Didn't think so.

[GGJohn]

10. Don't expect that one to answer.

When asked to provide links or proof, he tends to disappear from the thread.
Welcome to DU.

[beevul]

18. I like to think of it as an unofficial block from the thread.

Keep hitting them with truth and fact, and they'll keep running away.

[GGJohn]

20. Hmmmm, that's a good way to look at it.

Thanks.

[Duckhunter935]

21. Yep, that tends to be how it works

quite effective too

[NaturalHigh]

25. Yes, it's like Kryptonite.

[beevul]

26. Precisely. N/T

[Scuba]

19. See my reply #1.

[flamin lib]

58. Don't be so fucking lazy. Google three words"

road rage gun.

[beevul]

14. I've seen 3 of the 4 at least, here on DU. N/T

[jimmy the one]

11. utter rot

mog: t's an old article, but I just saw it. Seems to explain alot.

To wit any who are unfamiliar with what JPFO stands for, it's jewish, for Jews for Protection of Firearms Ownership, a radical progun jewish group, since jewish are amongst the foremost supporters of gun control.

In fact, JPFO has had serious confrontation with a more widely respected jewish org, Jewish Anti Defamation League, which I respect as well:
Disagreement with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) The JPFO has been highly critical of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In pamphlets such as "Why Does the ADL Support Nazi-Based Laws?" and "JPFO Facts vs. ADL Lies," the JPFO has accused the ADL of undermining the welfare of the Jewish people.
In response, Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote about the JPFO, "Anti-Semitism has a long and painful history, and the linkage to gun control is a tactic by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to manipulate the fear of anti-Semitism toward their own end... It is a campaign that has been viewed with concern by many in the Jewish community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_the_Preservation_of_Firearms_Ownership

mog's link, therefore, is just typical rightwing propagunda, aka trash: By Sarah Thompson, M.D... full contact information is given for JPFO. Copyright © 2000 Sarah Thompson, MD

excerpt from sarah's article, & is this what mog thinks, 'explains a lot'?????:
The Common Thread: Rage In my experience, the common thread in anti–gun people is rage. Either anti–gun people harbor more rage than others, or they’re less able to cope with it appropriately.
Because they can’t handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti–gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti–gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African–Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti–gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victim

Utter rot.

[mog75]

13. No

I don't agree with all of it. But it makes some good points, and helps to understand the mindsets of the anti 2nd folks. Maybe it's correct about the women, African -Americans and jews. I have no idea. But I will put on my google goggles and see what I can find. Sorry it offended you. I didn't really check the source. It seemed OK.

[Fred Sanders]

16. What about the reputation of the source link, you like the source?

[Fred Sanders]

15. The gun folks sources always link to rasical right wing and looney organizations and the NRA, it is thier

whole self created, self reinforcing cult world of self induced lies.

Welcome to the Gungeon, you made quite the splash.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. Please point out the part that is untrue and/or "rasical".

[My Good Babushka]

27. lol.

not just a gun nut, but a bigoted, racist, sexist gun nut. Nice article, you have there.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. "mog's link, therefore, is just typical rightwing propagunda"

The ADL never refuted the assertion they merely engaged in complaining and ad hominem dismissals.

[ileus]

12. What can you say....2A regressives love the thought of a larger victim pool

for criminals to choose from....

As for me I'll pass.

[Fred Sanders]

17. You support the JPFO?

"In response, Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote about the JPFO, "Anti-Semitism has a long and painful history, and the linkage to gun control is a tactic by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to manipulate the fear of anti-Semitism toward their own end... It is a campaign that has been viewed with concern by many in the Jewish community."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Do you support a woman's right to self defense?

[Fred Sanders]

23. Your question is a humorless take on "When did you stop beating your wife"? Always hilarious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. No, it's not. It's a straight up "yes" or "no" question.

You just refuse to admit that your obsession for control includes the demand that women not be allowed to defend themselves as they deem most effective.

If you concede the fact that women do have the right to self defense then you would have to give up your guns (the ones you have to use to force compliance to the laws you demand).

Neither you nor anyone else gets to decide for a woman's body. You need to learn that fact and learn to accept it.

[Fred Sanders]

29. Your one trick train wreck of illogic is endlessly amusing. Lots of other folks tell me that also.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. "Lots of other folks tell me that" Argumentum ad populum? Really?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. "Your one trick train wreck of illogic is endlessly amusing."

Said the guy whose only schtick is running around yelling, "NRA! NRA! NRA!"

Lots of other folks tell me that also.

Lots of folks are also moral cowards who can only backbite from safe havens rather than defend their rationales for demanding control over other people's lives.

You either support the right to self-defense or you don't. You have chosen to refuse to answer a very basic question. If your answer causes you so much embarrassment that is your problem, not mine.

[beevul]

35. Truer words were never written in this group.

"Lots of folks are also moral cowards who can only backbite from safe havens rather than defend their rationales for demanding control over other people's lives."

That ought ta be stickied to the top of this group.

Its certainly no worse than "gun humping murder advocate", not to mention, it is the truth.

[Neon Gods]

38. Just to be clear

You either support the right to self-defense or you don't.

Nowhere in the Constitution or the dictionary does it define self-defense as requiring a firearm. That is a construct of the pro-RKBA.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. And your free speech isn't defined as internet access. So what's your point?

[Neon Gods]

40. Because you can support a woman's right to...

...defend herself and be pro-gun control. It appeared that you were accusing Fred Sanders of not supporting a woman's right to defend herself because he supports gun control. RKBA people elsewhere are noted for their insistance that self-defense requires a firearm. It doesn't.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. So you support a woman's right to self-defense provided she only do so

in a strength-on-strength contest?

[NaturalHigh]

24. What I find truly strange...

is that the same people who think all guns should be banned also hate the police. I'm not sure what they think decent people should do if their lives are in danger.

[Neon Gods]

32. As someone who supports effective gun control...

...this article is offensive. The comments the good doctor concocted are nothing but strawmen to then be easily mocked and destroyed by the author. It probably makes RKBA people feel good seeing strawmen destroyed (no doubt our side does the same) but it doesn't solve anything. Bad people use guns to kill innocent people and many serious intelligent people disagree on the best solutions. I don't like my convictions trivialized by strawmen.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Are you looking for sympathy from those of us who are incessantly labeled as

gun humping baby murderers?

[Neon Gods]

37. No

I was expressing why I found this partisan article that slew strawmen, instead of examining the psychological reasons behind support for gun control, offensive. Take victims of gun crimes for example. Why do some victims then become strong supporters of gun control while others become strong supporters of gun ownership. Understand this and we might gain some insight on why people are so strongly divided on this issue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. It's only a straw man argument if people aren't making that argument.

Yet, in this group plenty of anti-self defense types make these arguments.

"You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

If the anti-self defense crew isn't saying this then who, exactly are they claiming will defend people?

It has been a repeated counterpoint to anti-gun advocates that the police have NO legal obligation to respond to calls for help, even in the event of a violation of a Restraining Order.

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

This is a very common refrain. Accusations of "Wild West Shootouts" and lurid fantasies -- replete with cartoons -- of gun owners killing each other are quite the fad.

"I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns."

One character in particular, and a few drive-bys, like to insist no real Progressive would ever support the RKBA.

"I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

I don't know if anyone has claim they would rather be raped but many seem to display a callous indifference to the well being of others.

[Neon Gods]

43. Anti-self defense?

Really? Tell me exactly exactly who claims that people don't have a right to defend themselves? Do we have some Jainists here? Personally I've never met one.

The rest of your response fails me also. There ARE in fact many instances of armed-in-public gun owners getting into shootouts over really stupid stuff. And, yes, there may be a few "spiritually aware" people who eschew all violence ergo eschew guns, but that is not even a minor faction of the gun control movement, in my experience. As for the fourth example, I think you completely missed the point. Recently, I was scolded by a concealed carry zealot who sighed, if you won't arm yourself, then we must do it for you. I was incensed of course because I never asked asked him -a perfect stranger- to protect me. In fact HE might be someone *I* need protection from. Do you assume that because I object to letting strangers carry loaded firearms around me and my loved ones that makes me someone who "displays a callous indifference to the well being of others"? Yikes!

[beevul]

44. In the context of a population of 300 million, how many is "many"?

"There ARE in fact many instances of armed-in-public gun owners getting into shootouts over really stupid stuff."

In the context of a population of 300 million, how many is "many"?

[Neon Gods]

45. It depends on your definition of

stupid stuff.

[beevul]

46. I was referring to otherwise law abiding citizens getting into shootouts.

In the context of a population of 300 million, how many is "many"?

[Neon Gods]

49. How many is too many?

One thing the gun control organizations on Facebook are good at is linking to senseless shootings. Probanly more than you think.

[beevul]

57. Thats not an answer to "how many". N/T

[Neon Gods]

59. You're right

I've spent the last two days counting them, using Gary Kleck's methodology, and the number I came up with is approximately 200,000. Relatively few of the shooters were injured to the extent that they needed medical care or police involvement because they were generally too drunk to do any real damage.

[gejohnston]

60. did you?

Did you read the study first hand, or take someone else's word for it?
Did you do a scientific poll? Most political polls are a few hundred people. Kleck polled 5K. The greater the number, the smaller the margin of error. and even then:

Hemenway claimed the Kleck and Gertz did little to reduce what Hemenway imagined to be a huge overestimation bias. Since there was no reason to believe such a thing existed when the NSDS was designed, and even less reason to believe it now, this is comparable to saying that Kleck and Gertz did nothing to prevent demons from possessing their interviewers. With a convenient vagueness, Hemenway did not say precisely what he thought Kleck and Gertz should have done to reduce this supposed bias, and therefore does not specify anything they failed to do.
In any case, the claim is false. On p. 161 of their article Kleck and Gertz explained that “all interviews in which an alleged DGU was reported by the respondent were validated by supervisors with call-backs” and, on p. 163, that Kleck “went through interview sheets on every one of the interviews in which a DGU was reported, looking for any indication that the incident might not be genuine.” They also reported on p. 172 that they debriefed their interviewers after the calling was finished, asking them about possible false reports and found that “only one interviewer spoke with a person he thought was inventing a nonexistent event.” It would be more accurate to say that they did virtually everything that could ethically be done to guard against false reports.

https://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm

[Neon Gods]

61. Posted without comment

http://politi.co/1sL2Me0

[gejohnston]

62. I read it

It makes much of Kleck's one and only critic, who was also a member of Handgun Control Incorporated and whose "research" was funded by the same people who astro turfed HCI, now Brady Campaign. (see why I don't trust him?). Kleck's study was funded by the DoJ. Of course, Hemenway wasn't the only Joyce funded study trying to counter Kleck's work. Another was by Phil Cook, who came up with 1.2 million, which is within Kleck's margin of error. Strange the Politico article doesn't mention that. What the Politico article also doesn't mention are the 15 previous studies that came up with numbers closer to Kleck's and Cook's than Hemenway's speculation.

Hemenway's counter is easily debunked. Even then, it isn't really a counter because it provided no evidence to back him up. He didn't do any research, he simply speculated. Hemenway went as far as accusing Gertz's employees of dishonesty without any evidence, without even so much as talking to any of the employees. The "counter" was not peer reviewed and had no scientific merit. The only reason it was published in the criminology publication that Kleck published his, was because the editor wanted a gun control discussion, not because it had any scientific merit.

Problem is, out of the number of criminologists, sociologists, and other researchers, who are legitimate researchers like Marvin Wolfgang none found any such flaws. In fact, that was the study (and resulting book) that earned American Society of Criminology's 1993 Michael J. Hindelang award. As I said before, that trumps the photo by guns (which might have belong to a crime lab for we know).

While Hemenway makes great political propaganda, it isn't science. Sure, it is made to fool the non-scientist into thinking it is, but it isn't. Basically, Hemenway is the Gordon Fulks of guns.

[Neon Gods]

63. Impasse

You belive your sources, I don't. I believe my sources, you don't.

[gejohnston]

65. The difference is

mine is peer reviewed and is in the mainstream of criminology based on empirical studies. That is the only reason I believe it. Yours, not so much. In fact, many criminologists changed their views on gun control, or at least gun prohibition, until they studied the issue objectively. When science or other empirical truth challenges my preconceived opinions, I question my views. If my preconceptions are proven to be wrong, then I discard the errors. I don't put value in dogma, nor do I feel the need to have certain views to "prove" my liberalism.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. Some folks have a liberal view because...

...they've reasoned through the options that matter to them. Others might share that view to fit a certain mold.

[Neon Gods]

68. Sorry, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny either.

No, you believe it because it agrees with your biases. If you disagree with the Politico piece, then take it up with them. Generally Politico is a center-right outlet from my point of view. If your data are so respected, so mainstream, why does everyone else in the mainstream reject them? The Politico article is very clear, it makes sense, and it also agrees with pure common sense about DGUs. I don't accept your studies, and you can bluster and splutter all you want, but accept the fact that your data are considered suspect by many.

[gejohnston]

69. I said mainstream criminology

not the mainstream of the media, who are generally stupid. The problem with the media, regardless of their bias, they do a lousy job discussing science or legal issues.
Politico's politics is irrelevant. Kleck's politics is left of center, so what? Politics is about value systems and priorities, not the empirical.
Again, Marvin Wolfgang and his follow up:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc
As for being accepted by the "mainstream" public, read the comments in the article.

No, you believe it because it agrees with your biases. If you disagree with the Politico piece, then take it up with them.

You are projecting. I have taken it up with them, as home many of its readers. It seems most of the readers are calling it the bullshit that it is.

The Politico article is very clear, it makes sense, and it also agrees with pure common sense about DGUs.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

I don't accept your studies, and you can bluster and splutter all you want, but accept the fact that your data are considered suspect by many.

I accept that some find it suspect. I also accept that many consider the data showing the Earth being billions of years old, and that species (evolved and continue to evolve) from earlier life forms suspect. That doesn't mean I have to take them seriously.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. "The Politico article is very clear, it makes sense, and it also agrees with pure common sense...

...about DGUs."

Sad to see a DUer promoting Colonism:

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[beevul]

66. That "piece" bases its conclusion in large part, on an opinion.

"Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy."

That there, is an opinion, unsupported by anything substantial.

Go post a poll in GD about whether people would call the police if they used a gun defensively, without firing a shot.


I'll wager that the answers run 4 to 1 "No" at best.

And I'm pretty sure that Americans at large would report at an even lower rate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. If I told you exactly who rejects self defense my post would be hidden.

One is banned from this group. There was another who has since been banned from DU.

"my experience"

Cool story, bro.

[Neon Gods]

48. Really?

There are people who don't believe humans have the right to fight back if someone strikes them or threatens them? No fists, no pepper spray? Just stand still and take it? I've never met someone like that.

[sarisataka]

50. Paul Quander

the District’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice

It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.

[Neon Gods]

54. Sigh

He prefaced that with: "if you are armed, it escalates the situation" so clearly he was speaking about using guns for self-defense. While I don't understand his logic (maybe, "if you encounter an armed assailant, displaying a gun of your own increases the chances the assailant will shoot you"?). Even so, he didn't say you don't have the right to use other means of self-defense, and my whole point here is that RKBA people assert that one's right to defend themself is proof that people must have access to firearms. I keep asking, where is this legal basis for this assertion? I'm tired of seeing gun control advocates accused of being anti-self defense because.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. Really. It was denounced as vigilantism.

[Neon Gods]

55. Defending oneself from harm is

vigilantiism? No way I can process that.

[enki23]

51. Not really here to argue guns, but... credible psychiatrists don't diagnose "mentalities."

On another note... I'm going to call on my toxicology expertise to expound on the dangers of this sort of blatant well-poisoning. My professional opinion is "the gun humpers went and poisoned the shit out of it." I'm a multiple gun owner, and this shit makes me feel the same way I do seeing most white dudes on the TV (secondhand, mostly, as it usually hurts). Jebus Christ, save me from any more of my fucking kind. I guess.

[Politicalboi]

53. It's not mentality

It's my RIGHT not to get shot by accident by gun nuts who drop or lets 2 year old play with them, or try and be the hero and miss. Keep your guns at HOME!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. How many times have you been shot?

[Neon Gods]

64. Maybe he/she doesn't want to wait...

...to be a victim.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. The he/she should confine his/herself to his/her home.

Odds are he/she will be killed by a drunk driver long before he/she is threatened with a gun.