Hoplophilia: What do antigunners believe gun owners believe?

[7x57]

That's why they fight especially hard against concealed carry, because they can't discriminate and segregate when they can't tell who is who and, God forbid, some of their own may cross over to our side without social reprecussions levied upon them.

I especially like the way you've phrased this, and I intend to use it.

7x57

[SirNik]

I think the anti-gun people view us as a threat to the establishment they rely on for their daily life. They think that someone with a gun will not rely on the police and thus they are a threat to police. they live in a black and white world where you are ether with the establishment or against it. these are same people (90% of the time) who want things like government run health care. they value the establishment and fear the individual. They have the whole "It takes a village" mindset.

Gun ownership is the beacon of individualism.

[ipser]

Another issue that may have been addressed already is projection. I see a LOT of FAR LEFT liberals who have a very difficult time controlling their emotions and therefore have a hard time conforming their actions to acceptable standards. Ive actually had some say to me (more than once) "If I owned a gun, I would kill people." And I agree with them... People like that should not have guns. Unfortunately, they assume that since THEY cant control their tempers, NOBODY ELSE CAN EITHER, and that simply is not true.

Yep, that's on the corresponding hoplophobia list.

[ipser]

I think the anti-gun people view us as a threat to the establishment they rely on for their daily life. They think that someone with a gun will not rely on the police and thus they are a threat to police. they live in a black and white world where you are ether with the establishment or against it. these are same people (90% of the time) who want things like government run health care. they value the establishment and fear the individual. They have the whole "It takes a village" mindset.

Gun ownership is the beacon of individualism.

Yes. How would you add to the lists and/or modify them to take account of this? (See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...-Gun_Arguments)

[ipser]

There's always the "Wild West" smear saying that we are anachronistic, that firearms ownership "doesn't belong/apply in modern society." They think we're living in the past or trying to play dress up--more accurately, they're projecting their view of that, saying that we're stuck in the wrong place and wrong time because they don't want RKBA and us in their place and their time. They don't want us intruding upon their pristine, gun free utopia which exists in the here and now they live in.

Good point. In terms of hoplophilia, we are living in the past, holding onto a more primitive world against the progress of civilization. Why do you think they believe that we would prefer that bygone world?

Needless to say, this also implies that antigunners believe that they are creating a safer world by eliminating guns but that's already been addressed in the hoplophobia thread.

They are reinventing and applying segregation to us. That's why they fight especially hard against concealed carry, because they can't discriminate and segregate when they can't tell who is who and, God forbid, some of their own may cross over to our side without social reprecussions levied upon them.

This is a very interesting point that doesn't fit neatly into the two lists of beliefs as I've organiezed them but which deserves more attention.

[Librarian]

I persist in recommending the Yale Cultural Cognition project research on this area, especially
The Self-Defensive Cognition of Self-Defense, and More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions

Each is far to long to even attempt a summary, except 'hoplophobes don't want to live in a world where guns may be necessary'

[7x57]

Good point. In terms of hoplophilia, we are living in the past, holding onto a more primitive world against the progress of civilization. Why do you think they believe that we would prefer that bygone world?

Fairly simple, in their particular narrative view of the world. We prefer it because we are agents of the thesis, the obsolete worldview that is holding back progress. They are agents of the antithesis, and that antithesis is by assumption better. They won't win everything, because the synthesis that results from the struggle contains elements of both the thesis and the antithesis, but by assumption they always win substantially.

If/when we "win," my guess is that many will reconcile that to their worldview by saying that guns were one of the parts of the thesis that became part of the synthesis, and therefore private gun ownership can't be eliminated until a future Hegelian step.

7x57

[ipser]

I persist in recommending the Yale Cultural Cognition project research on this area, especially
The Self-Defensive Cognition of Self-Defense, and More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions

Each is far to long to even attempt a summary, except 'hoplophobes don't want to live in a world where guns may be necessary'

I saved those to the wiki.

[ipser]

Fairly simple, in their particular narrative view of the world. We prefer it because we are agents of the thesis, the obsolete worldview that is holding back progress. They are agents of the antithesis, and that antithesis is by assumption better. They won't win everything, because the synthesis that results from the struggle contains elements of both the thesis and the antithesis, but by assumption they always win substantially.

Sure, but they must have some explanation (if they think about it, which is an assumption, of course) for our "clinging to guns and religion", as the saying goes. Of course, we are holding back their "progress" but what do they believe we are valuing in the thesis? (Or are you referring to conservativism in the simple meaning, clinging to the status quo for its own sake? The problem there is that gun control is the status quo, or was.)

[7x57]

Sure, but they must have some explanation (if they think about it, which is an assumption, of course) for our "clinging to guns and religion", as the saying goes. Of course, we are holding back their "progress" but what do they believe we are valuing in the thesis?

I'm not sure that's as important as it would seem. My point is that the more fundamental assumptions are some form of social and moral (the two are in fact conflated) evolution and that this evolution is toward a "higher" ethic rather than simply survival fitness (the latter is vital to avoiding despair, because an abominable ethic might otherwise be selected for, and there are historical grounds for thinking this happens). So explanations of the mechanism by which this works are in some sense secondary and post hoc. (NB: this is easy to confuse with the founders' 18th century idea of "progress," which is increasing conformance to a fixed, preternatural ethical standard. In the modern left's version, the standard itself evolves so that what was right once is wrong later. The difference is subtle but quite profound, starting with the fact that in the 18th century version if Arms are a human right once they are a human right always, while that need not be true in the modern version.)

But it is true that many individuals will have beliefs about the particular mechanism, and I suspect they vary. But I'm skeptical of their depth. For one thing, modern education does not teach one to think, and for another most people that believe in ethical evolution are not aware that they this is what they believe--it is part of the zeitgeist they have absorbed unconsciously. Plato told us that ethics absorbed that way are the most compelling, and he was correct. It's hard to think clearly if you are not consciously aware of your own presuppositions and have never learned to reason rigorously.

However, it's still a fair question. We can consult the president of the United States for one answer; he is something of an expert on the subject and probably more conscious and clear about it than most. He was pretty clear that he ascribes clinging to "guns and religion," clear talismans and symbols of the Thesis, as displaced or transferred bitterness over economic depression. I think that's as common an answer as any, and as a student of Alinsky he really should know what answers will sell to the proletariat.

How it helps his antithetical agenda to so ruin the economy with debt and regulation that people, under that theory, cling harder is a bit puzzling. The answer may be that he really doesn't believe he's doing that, but more likely I think is that if you provide enough bread and circuses at the public expense people will lose their misplaced, foolish affection for the talismans of the bad old Thesis.

7x57

[ipser]

I'm not sure that's as important as it would seem.

Perhaps. Hold those thoughts, let's return to them later. For now, I'm working on the assumption that people have reaons (perhaps bad ones but reasons nonetheless) for believing what they do. If there is no reason then so be it.

Shortly I'm going to propose that we all start doing some field research and one of the questions that I think everyone should ask the antigunners is: "why do you think gunowners cling to their guns?"

[hoffmang]

Perhaps. Hold those thoughts, let's return to them later. For now, I'm working on the assumption that people have reaons (perhaps bad ones but reasons nonetheless) for believing what they do. If there is no reason then so be it.

I think you're vastly underestimating rational ignorance. I posit to you that the only way to combat rational ignorance is with large signaling events. Proof of that would be both the lead up to the passage of GCA '68 and CA PC 12035 as examples.

-Gene

[Aldemar]

Had a discussion about this with my very left leaning brother-in-law last month:

He thinks that anyone who owns a gun is paranoid; moreover that we think that we are going to be robbed/raped/murdered any second and that statistics do not warrant that kind of worry.

I don't believe that the anti's are really worried, or care what we THINK, they believe that the guns themselves are dangerous, ie they go off by themselves without anyone touching them. Afterall, how often have you heard the statement "guns are dangerous" with no reference to the owner?

[ipser]

I think you're vastly underestimating rational ignorance. I posit to you that the only way to combat rational ignorance is with large signaling events. Proof of that would be both the lead up to the passage of GCA '68 and CA PC 12035 as examples.

Trust me, I'm not discounting or underestimating this. (I've made exactly that point before contra those who believe that anti-gun ignorance can be fought with knowledge.) But for purposes of this thead I want to set that possiblity aside and at least pretend that anti-gunners are thinking through their position lest we understimate them.

(And, for the record, I do think that rational ignorance is the best single explanation for gun control among the non-ideological "moderates").

[ipser]

I think you're vastly underestimating rational ignorance. I posit to you that the only way to combat rational ignorance is with large signaling events. Proof of that would be both the lead up to the passage of GCA '68 and CA PC 12035 as examples.

I added a note about rational igorance to the wiki page. But it's worth noting that even those who rationally avoid thinking about why they are anti-gun (much less why gun owners own guns) will almost certainly be able to provide an explanation if asked. (It may even be something along the lines, "I never really thought about it but I guess...")