There are two ways I can make you do something that you do not normally do.
- #1 - I can talk with you, reason with you, and share good data that supports my position. You listen and look at my data and consider it, you think about it. Then you decide. If I have done a good job then statistically you will agree and no more energy need be expended.

- #2 - I can manipulate you with emotions and public opinion. If I can get you angry, fearful or feeling inadequate, your rational processes will be suppressed and you will do things that you would not normally do. I have the perfect way you keep you spun up until I can get you in the voting booth, the television. I can hit you every half hour with pictures of carnage and a narrative that says," If you don't think this is awful then you are a bad person".

#3 - Force.

I shall repost this here:

Why the gun is civilization.

 

Joey in his younger days.

joking

 

Joey in his younger days.
joking

​

 

That's my Glock, middle left.

 

Nice choice.

 

don't spread the emotion on too thick or we won't be able to taste the logic.
...Oh, wait....

You're not entirely wrong though, we pro-gun rights types typically respond to tragic events in pro-gun rights ways. But our ways are usually defensive, and logical in nature; in defense, from anti-gun rights types who use the same tired old emotional and irrational arguments in the wake of every tragedy, as an opportunity to strike fear into the masses and gain converts.

From my perspective, there exists no certainty over who is making emotional arguments, and who is making logical ones. I think many of your comments are totally emotional, as you comments about how "my camp's" logic dictates that all NRA member be locked up in insane asylums. (Later, you said that people "sharing 'my' sentiments" want to give people in power the justification to take guns away) Both of these comments are purely out of emotion, as you really don't know me well enough to know if I want to 'lock up' NRA members and take away their guns. Neither have a made any comment that suggests as much (as another member pointed out) It's ironic you state my comments are emotional and irrational, then illustrate your opinion with emotional, irrational comments.

By contrast, I see where none of my original comments could be considered emotional or irrational. They weren't calibrated to invoke fear or worry from readers. What I laid out is a possible explanation for why the US has so much gun violence, while other nations where citizens are armed have considerably less. My statement was in reference to what I consider a possible psychological state of mind that might lead a number of people towards more gun violence, while simultaneously allowing those people to rationalize their involvement in the state violence or crimes. What is emotional or irrational about that? I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, as what I stated is only a theory. In addition, I recognize that I'm not a psychologist, and my psychological theories are nothing by pedestrian. However, I do think even "computer-brained logical types" can think about psychology without their brains exploding. It should be simple, really, as I have not appealed to emotions. One thing noticeable here is how no gun rights advocate would ever try to explain why there is so much gun violence in our society. If the subject comes up, all we ever hear is the old "guns don't kill people; people kill people" or some other variation on the theme. Now, as soon as someone makes an attempt to explain a possible factor, gun people want to jump all down their throats; accusing them of irrational, emotional and illogical speech. But if gun people don't know (or don't care) about what makes are society more violent, why try to squelch anyone who hazards a theory? Why are ya'll so afraid of speech?

Do you even know why you (you, personally) are a polarized convert against gun rights? And don't tell me it's because they're dangerous and dredge up all the lives that have been taken by gun-wielding people; that's too obvious. I ask because in my experience, when someone makes such a strong emotional plea (especially in a room like this full of computer-brained logical types), it's only because they couldn't come up with a logical plea. Maybe they don't even understand the origin of their own strong feelings on the matter.

Why are you convinced I'm a convert? I've never thought of gun ownership as an intrinsic right (even as I've owned guns for most of my life) I've always thought and continue to think of gun ownership as a privilege. Further, I don't see my comments as a plea, either emotional or otherwise. But I do think of some of the responses as emotional. A common thread in all of these discussions is to try to misrepresent valid arguments as over the top emotional and illogical rants. But I'll bet there are many non-NRA folks reading these forums who can see my comments for what they are, and don't see everything written on the subject through the same lense. Maybe they agree or disagree, but at least they can hold a thought in their head long enough to consider it without seeing it as some emotional rant. In short, outside of NRA supporting circles, we can have a rational discussion about these issues. We can come up with logical, rational ideas.

All we can do now is fight fire with fire, and you and your ilk are championing making owning matches a crime. You succeed in that, and you only succeed in opening the forest to pyromaniacs.

Me and my ilk? I have close friends who don't pretend to know me so well. And so, I'm supposed to fight forest fires with matches?

Let's say you find yourself tomorrow in a dark theater with a masked, body-armored gunman, wearing night vision goggles and carrying a duffel bag full of assault rifles and spraying lead in your direction, would you rather:

No, I don't wan to be in a theater with a crowd full of people packing guns. There are too many variables being ignored in these scenarios. I don't think possessing a gun makes everyone into Dirty Harry.

But answer me this: If you're attending an event somewhere and a bomb goes off killing and maiming numerous people, who you gonna shoot?

 

My city (state, actually)? Why no.

I just plop down cash on the counter at the local gun store and take home a weapon of my choice. Maybe two.

But in my state, we still have a semblance of freedom, unlike much of the West.

Good to know. Do you need to show your rap sheet or have some kind of psychological evaluation before you can buy your first gun?

 

"When you have good data you normally use method #1. It is the most efficient. If you do not have good data then you use method #2. (Supporting data is not required, just horrific pictures.) "

Yeah both sides of this argument are guilty of this so don't try to make your speech sound unbiased and true.

 

I take the bait again and again because the members here thirst for some politics and I'm always right

 

Even when I'm left

 

Good to know. Do you need to show your rap sheet or have some kind of psychological evaluation before you can buy your first gun?

To purchase, no. To carry, yes.

No psyche eval, though.

 

Thanks I had been wondering about that since to get a gun licence here you need a psychological evaluation for your gun permit.

There are some differences though. First you can only buy riffles and shotguns if you have a basic permit. Handguns need a special permit and you have to store it at the local shooting range for 16 years before you can take it home.

Well there is always the black market...

 

Do you need to show your rap sheet or have some kind of psychological evaluation before you can buy your first gun?

I didn't, but that was 45 years ago. I still haven't been certified as non-insane or non-violent by The State, and I still haven't paid them to rent me my Constitutional Rights.

 

Sinus23
There are few establishments here is Tucson that check you for guns and knifes on the way in....... If you don't have any, they give you some.

16 years is a bit long to wait when your house is being broken into.

 

16 years is a bit long to wait when your house is being broken into.

Yeah. Sometimes the cops are faster.

 

...and I still haven't paid them to rent me my Constitutional Rights.

It's pretty silly here that they let you buy a gun, but need a CCFL to carry it. Like a bad guy is gonna go through the trouble of getting a permit.

 

Sinus23
There are few establishments here is Tucson that check you for guns and knifes on the way in....... If you don't have any, they give you some.

16 years is a bit long to wait when your house is being broken into.

Just blast em with yar shotgun mate.

 

It's pretty silly here that they let you buy a gun, but need a CCFL to carry it. Like a bad guy is gonna go through the trouble of getting a permit.

Too obvious that only the honest citizens obey "gun" laws.
The next time you hear somebody say, "We need more gun laws!" finish their sentence with, "that criminals will voluntarily obey".

 

From my perspective, there exists no certainty over who is making emotional arguments, and who is making logical ones.. I think many of your comments are totally emotional.

Fair enough, I'll concede long enough to admit that I have some emotion attached to the issue. Maybe I wasn't 100% effective in keeping that out of my argument.

One thing noticeable here is how no gun rights advocate would ever try to explain why there is so much gun violence in our society.

That's a bit hyperbolic. I see guys try to tackle that one all the time. Here, let me try:
We have a uniquely high level of "gun violence" in America because we have a uniquely high level of guns in America. People are violent, everywhere, since the before we were bipeds; just like almost every other creature. We may have evolved a good bit but we're still animals. Animals who have found a way to take all the pain and hard/dirty work out of killing one another, by killing from a safe distance. So naturally we choose that method whenever feasible.

But it's worse than that. Not only are we violent by nature, we're also incredibly numb. We are desensitized to violence by TV, video games, etc. We are desensitized to value of life by having a life so easy to live. Not many people in our society have had to fight for their lives through starvation, plague, etc. We are bored and idle hands are the devil's playground.

If the subject comes up, all we ever hear is the old "guns don't kill people; people kill people" or some other variation on the theme.

I humbly apologize for that. I wish my ilk would breathe new life into their arguments. I typically avoid these gun control discussions, this is one of the reasons why. I have trouble being heard over the drum beats and mantric chants. That being said, they aren't wrong.

Why are you convinced I'm a convert? I've never thought of gun ownership as an intrinsic right (even as I've owned guns for most of my life) I've always thought and continue to think of gun ownership as a privilege.

But it isn't a privilege. It is a right. That is, if you believe that the constitution is worth the paper it's written on. I believe there are enough embers burning to make that a thing of the past.

To take it a step further, and make the discussion less 'Murica, I think the right to bear arms is a natural human right. It's the right to defend yourself against those who would do you harm, with tactical parity. Tell me, who has the right to take that right away from you? And if any person has that right, from where did he get it? Why does he deserve it?

But answer me this: If you're attending an event somewhere and a bomb goes off killing and maiming numerous people, who you gonna shoot?

I'm going to be in a situation where I don't how to respond, and I admit that such situations exist. My gun won't protect me there. I'll probably feel just as helpless as had I been forcefully disarmed by an overreaching government.

 

Lets assume people in France were armed to the teeth. They are no longer "helpless" by the definition of those of you here who are so heavily pro-NRA (i am putting it like this because I am not against gun ownership, but we clearly do not share the same views). Does anyone honestly believes that the terrorist attack would have not have been successful? People executing these are smart, driven and well equipped. They also have something that all westerners lost a long time ago - a strong belief system. They know that what they are doing is right, righteous and just. Meanwhile, here we are not able to carry a conversation about gun ownership...