Anti-Rights Hypocrites

So Bob wrote an awesome post about the general poor form executed by Joan Peterson. Go read the whole thing because A) Its Awesome, and B) I’ll build on that here.

Bob’s post made me think of this piece being shilled by the Joyce Foundation (A group that Joan Peterson also works for). It discusses a guide to debating with Pro-gun people. What’s interesting is how much this article reeks of psychological projection, keep this in mind as you read:

is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or “projecting,” those same faults onto another person or object.

So let’s tick down the things that pro-gun people allegedly do:

Ad hominem attacksAd: First up just read this quote: “Common insults include: Communist, socialist, liberal, liar, extreme, Democrat, etc.” First up, these things can only be attacks if they aren’t true, or aren’t backed up by facts. Most anti-rights activists are Liberal Democrats and Liars. These are all easily proven, and why would THEY think this is in insult? (BTW note that Psychological Projection is a common symptom of Narcissistic personality disorder, which is rooted in self-loathing, and shamelessness…keep that in mind too). Now meanwhile how often do you read an anti-rights publican where they talk about people being “trigger happy” or “Vicious”, “Jerks”,”Red Necks”, “idiots”, or the perennial comment about penis size.

Thirdpower has some nice posts up on the ad hominem behavior of this very author.

Anecdotal evidence: Bob covers this very well pointing out the nature of the antis pointing to single-point event. They further twist this by often overlooking the criminal activities and simply point out the fact that a gun was used for bad. Heck in the blog post Bob referenced Joan mentions 4 crimes committed with guns with nothing in common. Two suicides and two criminal acts, and they’re scattered across the country. Also antis like to focus on rare events, like the Arizona shooting of Gabby Giffords, or Virginia Tech which accounted for about 1% of the respective “Gun Death” for their respective years…while ignoring shootings in gang infested areas of the country. hmmm

Conflation of gun crime and non-gun crime Hmmm again, Let’s look at the Antis. Bob notes that Jason Kilgore (AKA Baldr Odinson) writes a blog that collects the shootings of Minor Children. Bob points out one of those posts where the kid shot was a street thug with a long record who was attempting to mug an armed older gentleman. It doesn’t take much to pile up kids engaged in gang activity getting shot. In Joan’s recent post she lists 2 violent crimes with guns, and two suicides. Are those really related? Again it doesn’t take much looking into the anti-rights arguments to see them blurring the lines. Another great example is the Kellerman Study where Arthur Kellerman ignored all defensive gun use outside the home, as well as all defensive gun uses that didn’t produce a dead body…as well as counting rival gang members shooting each-other as being “Known to the victim”. What’s that sound like to you?

Conspiracy thinking. I always like to mention then folks on Ruby Ridge when people start talking about conspiracy. The Weaver family went up on that mountain because they feared the government was out to get them. This doesn’t sound so crazy when you note that the majority of the family was assassinated by government agents on non-violent charges orchestrated by a government informant. (the informant paid Randy Weaver to cut a shotgun’s barrel down to below the NFA legal length so the feds would give him a lighter jail sentence), but if you want more info have a peek here here and here, and then keep looking as there’s LOTS more. The author calls pro-rights activists as “Crazy” for assuming that anti-gun groups are after lawfully held guns, and wish to put people in jail for exercising their rights. But we have all the above data, as well as pointing out stories like the people thrown in jail for carrying firearms in NYC, or Massachusetts confiscating lawfully held guns, I think I’ve proven my point well enough…note he presents no facts….hmmm

Elevated ego Ironically this section is mostly ad hominem attack. If there was even anecdotal evidence presented I could refute…but there isn’t. But that really makes my point anyway, doesn’t it?

False irrelevancy He specifically references “It’s common for pro-gun people to call any information that isn’t very, very recent irrelevant because it’s old.” Honestly I’ve never heard of such things. Hell Most of my arguments span DECADES, and the pro-gun people frequently reference things none of us were alive for like the Prohibition of Alcohol and the crime steaming from that, and the passage of the NFA from that, or the confiscation of lawfully held firearms by the Nazi party of Germany, or the Warsaw uprising, or the Bielski partisans, heck everybody quickly links Linoge’s “Graphics Matter” post which spans decades of data, and is updated annually. I have no idea what he’s talking about, and I wonder if he even does…

Fictional constitutional rights: Now this one is just straight-up projection. Let’s just drop a direct quote:

Almost every pro-gun person adds the word individual to this text, despite it not being in there. There is no right here to kill anyone. There is no right here to use guns against the government. There is no right here for anything beyond the right of the collective “people” to bear arms as part of a militia.

OK so he goes on the debunked “Collective Right” theory pushed exclusively by anti-gun people. It seems that according to the antis the 2nd Amendment details a collective right, while the other nine rights detailed in the bill of rights apply directly to the individual. Does this make sense to you? Also there’s no right to use deadly force? So why is self-defense 100% legal in every state in the union, even in places that are the most restrictive to the use of defensive weapons? We can’t use guns to overthrow out government? Isn’t that why we’re not England now?

I have nowhere to go with this but point pure projections, he claims pro-rights people argue that certain rights exist that don’t, and then he claims rights that DO exist don’t. Hmmm

Geographical nonsense Again I’ll just quote:

Every country in the world that has stronger gun control laws has lower rates of gun crime than the U.S., which has weak gun control laws. That’s a simple fact and it’s the big problem with all anti-gun control arguments, they can’t get around this fact, it isn’t possible.

Oops… I guess “Nonsense” is anything that’s true. Shame.

Godwin’s rule Well first up this section refutes his statement that Pro-gun people don’t accept historical evidence. Also this harkens to my post about Godwin’s Law is the Refuge of Cowards. They can’t refute that gun control was a KEY driver of the holocaust or any other genocide, so they call “Godwin” and demand that all Nazi references be withdrawn. Sorry, no deal!

“If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns” The criminals in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, and NYC might disagree. Not to mention the people shot at various University spree shootings. So yeah, more lies, good job!

Logical gymnastics Like the anti-gun logical cornerstone: “If Guns were as illegal as murder, nobody would be murdered with guns”? You know, like passing a law making such-and-such a place a “Gun Free Zone”, the minor crime will deter somebody from doing a major crime? Have I made my point sufficiently?

Reinventing the wheel He’s Making some reference to debate between anti-gun people and pro-gun people. You’ll note that this blog post and the one on his home site both have comment sections, but both are empty. This is because they heavily moderate comments on all anti-rights blogs. You’ll also note that there are no anti-gun people refuting any of my points here. You see they don’t comment where they can’t control the message. I have banned a few trolls from this site because when they DO venture across the aisle, they won’t debate, they just spam. SO I have no idea what you’re talking about because its never been allowed to happen either way. I do know the rare instances when I have debated with anti-rights people, they constantly change the subject to avoid being cornered, that you’re often recalling the original topic that was never resolved. That’s not re-inventing the wheel, that’s debating. I’m not surprised you don’t understand that having read your work…

Source hypocrisy & Source rejection: More projections. First up I’m quoting this off a Joyce Foundation blog, and I’ve never seen anti-gun people cite sources that aren’t funded by the Joyce Foundation, or the Brady Campaign. Its a major incest-fest over there. So yeah, there’s that.

“You’ll never stop criminals from getting guns, so gun control laws are ineffective”: Yet they won’t show me how gun control laws have BEEN effective. The best they can do is using “Gun Death” which is an invalid metric. But again, how can you claim we’re wrong without anything presented on your own?

Notice once thing this post DOES reflect? These are the EXACT tactics used by the anti-rights people to argue their point…but they claim we’re the one’s doing it.

Yeah, nice try! You thought that would work?

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Anti-Rights Hypocrites

  1. Pyrotek85 says:

    Wait, they debate pro-gun people? Since when?

  2. Bob S. says:

    3 of the 4 crimes she links to where in Chicago, California and New York City — guess where gun control laws are the most restrictive?

    Again she doesn’t see the hypocrisy in pointing out these crimes while calling for more restrictive laws.

    — She has already stated she will keep calling for ever more restrictive laws until there are zero firearm related murders. So much for not wanting to ban firearms (another favorite lie).

    You’ll also note that there are no anti-gun people refuting any of my points here. You see they don’t comment where they can’t control the message.

    I provided pingbacks to both Baldr’s new blog and to Joan. Care to bet if either of them will stop by to refute my points?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Kilgore MIGHT leave a comment, but you won’t get a debate, you’ll get the Mike Bonomo Stick-and-move treatment where he’ll leave a comment, you’ll give a rebuttal, 2-3 people might also add their 2c, and if he comes back (he’s never left more than one comment per post on my blog) he won’t address any of them, or pick the single-most irrelevant point in an otherwise well-written rebuttal and discuss that before vanishing into the ether.

      Joan only talks to people who she know will agree with her.

  3. Greg Camp says:

    My experience (waste of time?) with gun control advocates is that they pick on minor details of an argument, while ignoring the main point, fly into cursing and insults when we don’t agree with them, make vague claims about our lack of critical thinking without providing any support, and refuse to understand that people can come to different conclusions from the same set of data, based on the system of values used in analysis.

    Of course, that’s with the grabbers who allow comments in the first place. Odinson seems to have stopped comments without any announcement, and Peterson only lets a comment through when she’s ready to demean it or ignore it.

  4. Sailorcurt says:

    The whole comment moderation thing, refusing to engage where they don’t control the narrative, and accusing the pro-rights side of the very tactics that they employ daily are part and parcel of their strategy.

    That post wasn’t intended for us. They know that we see right through it, that we know better and that we have incontrovertible evidence that it’s all nothing but bunk and hokem.

    That post was intended for people who AREN’T engaged in this battle on a daily basis. That DON’T have the knowledge imparted by years of experience and who HAVEN’T been exposed to the incontrovertible evidence.

    That post was directed at the only people in the country that they still have any hope of getting on their side: The naive and ignorant.

    It’s sort of like calling the police after having to defend yourself. The first one that calls 911 is generally considered the victim, so if you have to use a firearm (even if…especially if…no shots were required), it is imperative to call the police right away so you don’t unknowingly end up with half the city police force looking for someone who looks a lot like you, that’s been reported as armed and dangerous and is brandishing a firearm at innocent passers by.

    This is the same principle. If they hook those naive and ignorant people and tell them “these are the tactics that those lunatic gun-lovers use”, and then when we try to clear up the confusion by asserting that we’ve been framed…who do you think they’re prone to believe.

    It’s a lot easier to fill an empty jar than one that’s already full of muck. Their goal is to slop around as much muck as possible and try to fill all the empty jars before we can get to them.

    One point about the post itself:

    “Conflation of gun crime and non-gun crime”. Um…why shouldn’t they be conflated? That’s the whole point of your “Gun Homicide?” series. Violent crime is violent crime…a rape victim isn’t any less raped, a murder victim isn’t any less murdered and a robbery victim isn’t any less robbed just because the perp didn’t use a gun. That’s probably the only accurate thing in his entire diatribe. We DO conflate gun crime and non-gun crime, because they SHOULD be conflated. Trying to separate them is a symptom of blaming inanimate objects for the acts of those who employ them and is a major feature of their worldview (or, some would say, psychological disorder).

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Oh good point, I missed that bit on lumping all violent crime together. BTW that’s the BIG reason why they need to control the narrative, they hate having to answer why they light candles for people who where shot, but never for people who were stabbed or beaten to death…

      Oh and we’re “insensitive” for caring about those violent crime victims.

  5. Pingback: They Call US “Jerks”? | Weer'd World

  6. Eck! says:

    Sailor curt hit on the activity. It’s know to those that discuss Propaganda as the big lie.

    It is the lie that supports their position, it is not permitted to be debated, it is for the party faithful and those on the rail.


    Here is a sample:

    Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common “tricks of the trade” used by successful propagandists (Marlin 102-106: Propaganda Critic: Introduction). These seven techniques are called:

    Name Calling
    Glittering Generalities
    Plain Folks
    Card Stacking
    Band Wagon

    Any of this familiar??


  7. Thirdpower says:

    My guess on the ‘ignoring old data’ thing is when he cited claims that you can get machinegun parts at gun shows. Note present tense terminology. Looking into it, it references a report from the VPC from 2000 which cites a gov’t committee hearing from 1993 discussing military theft of equipment after the 1st gulf war.

    He threw a hissy fit when I brought that to light.

  8. Pingback: Pretty Typical | Weer'd World

  9. Pingback: Low Hanging Fruit | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *