Obama Seeks 'Assault' Weapons Ban

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Admittedly it’s an area where I have opinions and little knowledge. I’ve always been anti-gun because the thought of guns scares me.
[/quote]

Bravo, Jab. Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

hoplophobia, (n), a mental disturbance characterized by an irrational aversion to weapons.

The term hoplophobia was coined by Jeff Cooper over thirty years ago, “in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is – a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position.”

His explanation of the term hoplophobia:

"It follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions. “Hoplon” is the Greek word for “instrument,” but refers synonymously to “weapon” since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for “terror” and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. . .

"We read of “gun grabbers” and “anti-gun nuts” but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who is irrational on the point under discussion. You cannot say calmly “Come, let us reason together” to a hoplophobe because that is what he is – a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed.

". . . The essence of the affliction is the belief that instruments cause acts. It may be that certain degenerate human beings are so far gone that they will use something just because it is there – a match, for instance. (I saw a bumper sticker in the Rockies that admonished “Prevent Forest Fires. Register Matches!”) One who will burn people because he has a match is the same as one who will shoot people because he has a gun, but the hoplophobe zeroes in on guns because he is – let’s face it – irrational.

"He will answer this by saying that we need matches (and cars, and motorcycles, and power saws, et cetera) but we do not need guns. He will not accept the idea that you may indeed need your guns, because he hates guns. He is afflicted by the grotesque notion that tools have a will of their own. He may admit that safe driving is a matter of individual responsibility, but he rejects the parallel in the matter of weapons. This may not be insanity, but it is clearly related to it.

"One cannot rationally hate or fear an inanimate object. Neither can he rationally hate or fear an object because of its designed purpose. Whether one approves of capital punishment or not, one cannot rationally fear a hemp rope. One who did, possibly because he once narrowly escaped hanging, would generally be referred to a shrink. When the most prominent hoplophobe in the United States Senate says that he abhors firearms because their purpose is to put bullets through things, he reinforces the impressions that many have formed about his capacity to reason.

“My point – and I hope it is clear – is that hoplophobia is a mental disturbance rather than a point of view. Differences of opinion – on economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or the neutron bomb – these we may hope to resolve by discussion. But we cannot so resolve a phobia. The mentally ill we cannot reach. But we can identify a form of mental illness for what it is, and so separate its victims from the policy considerations of reasonable people.”

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Admittedly it’s an area where I have opinions and little knowledge. I’ve always been anti-gun because the thought of guns scares me.

Bravo, Jab. Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

hoplophobia, (n), a mental disturbance characterized by an irrational aversion to weapons.

The term hoplophobia was coined by Jeff Cooper over thirty years ago, “in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is – a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position.”

His explanation of the term hoplophobia:

"It follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions. “Hoplon” is the Greek word for “instrument,” but refers synonymously to “weapon” since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for “terror” and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. . .

"We read of “gun grabbers” and “anti-gun nuts” but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who is irrational on the point under discussion. You cannot say calmly “Come, let us reason together” to a hoplophobe because that is what he is – a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed.

". . . The essence of the affliction is the belief that instruments cause acts. It may be that certain degenerate human beings are so far gone that they will use something just because it is there – a match, for instance. (I saw a bumper sticker in the Rockies that admonished “Prevent Forest Fires. Register Matches!”) One who will burn people because he has a match is the same as one who will shoot people because he has a gun, but the hoplophobe zeroes in on guns because he is – let’s face it – irrational.

"He will answer this by saying that we need matches (and cars, and motorcycles, and power saws, et cetera) but we do not need guns. He will not accept the idea that you may indeed need your guns, because he hates guns. He is afflicted by the grotesque notion that tools have a will of their own. He may admit that safe driving is a matter of individual responsibility, but he rejects the parallel in the matter of weapons. This may not be insanity, but it is clearly related to it.

"One cannot rationally hate or fear an inanimate object. Neither can he rationally hate or fear an object because of its designed purpose. Whether one approves of capital punishment or not, one cannot rationally fear a hemp rope. One who did, possibly because he once narrowly escaped hanging, would generally be referred to a shrink. When the most prominent hoplophobe in the United States Senate says that he abhors firearms because their purpose is to put bullets through things, he reinforces the impressions that many have formed about his capacity to reason.

“My point – and I hope it is clear – is that hoplophobia is a mental disturbance rather than a point of view. Differences of opinion – on economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or the neutron bomb – these we may hope to resolve by discussion. But we cannot so resolve a phobia. The mentally ill we cannot reach. But we can identify a form of mental illness for what it is, and so separate its victims from the policy considerations of reasonable people.”
[/quote]
This is very, very interesting to me. Where is the text from that you quoted and is that the whole text?

It is interesting to me primarily for two reasons. The first is that it presents a new (to me) view point on this matter. The second is that I share this viewpoint when it comes to religious people. I think it is very difficult to reason with religious or superstitious people because their beliefs are irrational, and I view it as a form of mental disturbance.

So I am naturally a little perturbed to have the same accusation (of possessing a mental disturbance) levelled at me, when I consider myself to be completely devoid of superstition and someone who strives to achieve rational thoughts in all areas.

My first thought, I think naturally was “I’m not a hoplophobe” because I am scared of things like how suddenly a gun can end life, but the analogy with cars and matches caused pause for thought.

I am different in one case from the typical hoplophobe described; my mind can always be changed, IF I’m presented with solid evidence. I need to learn more from both sides, so any more thoughtful replies are gratefully received.

There are various important distinctions that should be made in the case of mental disturbances of various kinds.

A good illustration, perhaps, is that it has been demonstrated that when physically and psychologically normal cats are kept for a time in the company of cats having some profound mental disturbance – I forget what; it may have been that the disturbance was experimentally caused by drugs or brain surgery – the normal cats adopt the bizarre behavior of their new associates.

However, while the behavior may have been the same or similar, both the cause and the prognosis for recovery are completely different in the case of the two sorts of cats in question.

The normal cats exposed to the disturbed cats have far better prognosis for return to normal behavior on ending their exposure to disturbed cats and instead exposing them to other normal cats.

Whereas the disturbed cats cannot be cured simply by changing who they associate with.

In your instance, you really never had a reason to concern yourself with the questions at hand nor had any direct experience really. I would think you simply absorbed some attitudes from your environment.

When that is all there is to it, views are often easily changed, I think.

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
This is very, very interesting to me. Where is the text from that you quoted and is that the whole text?[/quote]

This was an excerpt from an article entitled The Root of the Evil, from Col. Cooper’s book To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth, which is available from Amazon.

[quote]It is interesting to me primarily for two reasons. The first is that it presents a new (to me) view point on this matter. The second is that I share this viewpoint when it comes to religious people. I think it is very difficult to reason with religious or superstitious people because their beliefs are irrational, and I view it as a form of mental disturbance.

So I am naturally a little perturbed to have the same accusation (of possessing a mental disturbance) levelled at me, when I consider myself to be completely devoid of superstition and someone who strives to achieve rational thoughts in all areas.

My first thought, I think naturally was “I’m not a hoplophobe” because I am scared of things like how suddenly a gun can end life, but the analogy with cars and matches caused pause for thought.

I am different in one case from the typical hoplophobe described; my mind can always be changed, IF I’m presented with solid evidence. I need to learn more from both sides, so any more thoughtful replies are gratefully received.
[/quote]

Well, as I (tongue-in-cheekily) said before, your admission that your aversion to weapons stems from fear of them is a positive sign. It means that unlike a true victim of hoplophobia, you are willing to look at your aversion rationally, which I applaud.

Here is an analysis of the phenomenon by Dr. Sarah Thompson, a psychiatrist. She says, “with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term “hoplophobia” to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable, something most anti-gun folks will never admit.”

Cheers.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Admittedly it’s an area where I have opinions and little knowledge. I’ve always been anti-gun because the thought of guns scares me.

Bravo, Jab. Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

hoplophobia, (n), a mental disturbance characterized by an irrational aversion to weapons.

The term hoplophobia was coined by Jeff Cooper over thirty years ago, “in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is – a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position.”

His explanation of the term hoplophobia:

"It follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions. “Hoplon” is the Greek word for “instrument,” but refers synonymously to “weapon” since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for “terror” and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. . .

"We read of “gun grabbers” and “anti-gun nuts” but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who is irrational on the point under discussion. You cannot say calmly “Come, let us reason together” to a hoplophobe because that is what he is – a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed.

". . . The essence of the affliction is the belief that instruments cause acts. It may be that certain degenerate human beings are so far gone that they will use something just because it is there – a match, for instance. (I saw a bumper sticker in the Rockies that admonished “Prevent Forest Fires. Register Matches!”) One who will burn people because he has a match is the same as one who will shoot people because he has a gun, but the hoplophobe zeroes in on guns because he is – let’s face it – irrational.

"He will answer this by saying that we need matches (and cars, and motorcycles, and power saws, et cetera) but we do not need guns. He will not accept the idea that you may indeed need your guns, because he hates guns. He is afflicted by the grotesque notion that tools have a will of their own. He may admit that safe driving is a matter of individual responsibility, but he rejects the parallel in the matter of weapons. This may not be insanity, but it is clearly related to it.

"One cannot rationally hate or fear an inanimate object. Neither can he rationally hate or fear an object because of its designed purpose. Whether one approves of capital punishment or not, one cannot rationally fear a hemp rope. One who did, possibly because he once narrowly escaped hanging, would generally be referred to a shrink. When the most prominent hoplophobe in the United States Senate says that he abhors firearms because their purpose is to put bullets through things, he reinforces the impressions that many have formed about his capacity to reason.

“My point – and I hope it is clear – is that hoplophobia is a mental disturbance rather than a point of view. Differences of opinion – on economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or the neutron bomb – these we may hope to resolve by discussion. But we cannot so resolve a phobia. The mentally ill we cannot reach. But we can identify a form of mental illness for what it is, and so separate its victims from the policy considerations of reasonable people.”
[/quote]

Fear is in fact the root of much of the anti-gun sentiment.

It underscores the importance of being a good representative for firearms ownership. Sometimes education works and I have seen it work personally. It is a good practice to try to respectfully educate naysayers first. If they are still venomous, then feel free to mock them.

Hell, I was scared shitless the first time I pulled a trigger all those years ago.

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet…

[quote]SpartanX wrote:
I see those lil royal faggots shooting and missing quail tho…how does that work?[/quote]

Probably improper leading, trigger control, and follow-through.

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

Sorry, I’m from the UK, I live in England. Should have mentioned that I guess!
[/quote]

Sorry in advance to everyone that knows I’m going to ask this for the hundredth time: So, how’s your queen?

mike

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Fear is in fact the root of much of the anti-gun sentiment.

It underscores the importance of being a good representative for firearms ownership. Sometimes education works and I have seen it work personally. It is a good practice to try to respectfully educate naysayers first. If they are still venomous, then feel free to mock them.

Hell, I was scared shitless the first time I pulled a trigger all those years ago.

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet…[/quote]

I agree, JD, and that’s generally my policy, both on internet forums and in real life.

What also characterizes the anti-gun mentality is the belief that it’s the gun owner and enthusiast who is the irrational one: the stereotypical paranoid religious right-wing redneck.

I find that simply by allowing the person in question to see that I don’t fit their preconceived notion of how a gun owner is supposed to look, act, or think, I’m halfway toward creating a reasonable doubt in their minds about their other preconceived notions concerning firearms in general.

Always assuming, of course, that like Jab here, they are willing to admit that an opposing viewpoint might just have some merit.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

Sorry, I’m from the UK, I live in England. Should have mentioned that I guess!

Sorry in advance to everyone that knows I’m going to ask this for the hundredth time: So, how’s your queen?

mike[/quote]

Haha, I’m fairly sure I can guess what you want out of me, but you’ll have to try on someone else. I’m very much opposed to the monarchy. I think it should die when the Queen does.

/thread hijack.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
This is very, very interesting to me. Where is the text from that you quoted and is that the whole text?

This was an excerpt from an article entitled The Root of the Evil, from Col. Cooper’s book To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth, which is available from Amazon.

It is interesting to me primarily for two reasons. The first is that it presents a new (to me) view point on this matter. The second is that I share this viewpoint when it comes to religious people. I think it is very difficult to reason with religious or superstitious people because their beliefs are irrational, and I view it as a form of mental disturbance.

So I am naturally a little perturbed to have the same accusation (of possessing a mental disturbance) levelled at me, when I consider myself to be completely devoid of superstition and someone who strives to achieve rational thoughts in all areas.

My first thought, I think naturally was “I’m not a hoplophobe” because I am scared of things like how suddenly a gun can end life, but the analogy with cars and matches caused pause for thought.

I am different in one case from the typical hoplophobe described; my mind can always be changed, IF I’m presented with solid evidence. I need to learn more from both sides, so any more thoughtful replies are gratefully received.

Well, as I (tongue-in-cheekily) said before, your admission that your aversion to weapons stems from fear of them is a positive sign. It means that unlike a true victim of hoplophobia, you are willing to look at your aversion rationally, which I applaud.

Here is an analysis of the phenomenon by Dr. Sarah Thompson, a psychiatrist. She says, “with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term “hoplophobia” to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable, something most anti-gun folks will never admit.”

Cheers.

[/quote]

Thanks for that. I think if my stereotype of gun owners resembled people like you, I wouldn’t have my “fear”.

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Admittedly it’s an area where I have opinions and little knowledge. I’ve always been anti-gun because the thought of guns scares me.

Bravo, Jab. Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

hoplophobia, (n), a mental disturbance characterized by an irrational aversion to weapons.

The term hoplophobia was coined by Jeff Cooper over thirty years ago, “in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is – a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position.”

His explanation of the term hoplophobia:

"It follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions. “Hoplon” is the Greek word for “instrument,” but refers synonymously to “weapon” since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for “terror” and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. . .

"We read of “gun grabbers” and “anti-gun nuts” but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who is irrational on the point under discussion. You cannot say calmly “Come, let us reason together” to a hoplophobe because that is what he is – a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed.

". . . The essence of the affliction is the belief that instruments cause acts. It may be that certain degenerate human beings are so far gone that they will use something just because it is there – a match, for instance. (I saw a bumper sticker in the Rockies that admonished “Prevent Forest Fires. Register Matches!”) One who will burn people because he has a match is the same as one who will shoot people because he has a gun, but the hoplophobe zeroes in on guns because he is – let’s face it – irrational.

"He will answer this by saying that we need matches (and cars, and motorcycles, and power saws, et cetera) but we do not need guns. He will not accept the idea that you may indeed need your guns, because he hates guns. He is afflicted by the grotesque notion that tools have a will of their own. He may admit that safe driving is a matter of individual responsibility, but he rejects the parallel in the matter of weapons. This may not be insanity, but it is clearly related to it.

"One cannot rationally hate or fear an inanimate object. Neither can he rationally hate or fear an object because of its designed purpose. Whether one approves of capital punishment or not, one cannot rationally fear a hemp rope. One who did, possibly because he once narrowly escaped hanging, would generally be referred to a shrink. When the most prominent hoplophobe in the United States Senate says that he abhors firearms because their purpose is to put bullets through things, he reinforces the impressions that many have formed about his capacity to reason.

“My point – and I hope it is clear – is that hoplophobia is a mental disturbance rather than a point of view. Differences of opinion – on economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or the neutron bomb – these we may hope to resolve by discussion. But we cannot so resolve a phobia. The mentally ill we cannot reach. But we can identify a form of mental illness for what it is, and so separate its victims from the policy considerations of reasonable people.”

This is very, very interesting to me. Where is the text from that you quoted and is that the whole text?

It is interesting to me primarily for two reasons. The first is that it presents a new (to me) view point on this matter. The second is that I share this viewpoint when it comes to religious people. I think it is very difficult to reason with religious or superstitious people because their beliefs are irrational, and I view it as a form of mental disturbance.

So I am naturally a little perturbed to have the same accusation (of possessing a mental disturbance) levelled at me, when I consider myself to be completely devoid of superstition and someone who strives to achieve rational thoughts in all areas.

My first thought, I think naturally was “I’m not a hoplophobe” because I am scared of things like how suddenly a gun can end life, but the analogy with cars and matches caused pause for thought.

I am different in one case from the typical hoplophobe described; my mind can always be changed, IF I’m presented with solid evidence. I need to learn more from both sides, so any more thoughtful replies are gratefully received.
[/quote]

What is going on in Britain is people have been systematically conditioned into fearing firearms. The sad part is there are all manner of things in their environment that could be used to kill them but they never even think about it.

Think about this. In the tube people will stand right at the edge of the platform waiting for the train without even thinking that someone could just give them a shove and they would be under the train. Millions of people do this every day without the slightest fear. But the thought of just one person owning a gun is absolutely terrifying because they worry about what if he’s a nutter.

What is going on with the British is mind control on a massive scale. It is just an unquestioned and readily accepted orthodoxy amongst the British that gun control is the reason why the rates of gun crime in the UK are different from the US. It never enters peoples conscious thoughts that there are could be any other reason. Because the British have been conditioned to think that way by the media.

Something I notice that people in the UK are woefully unaware of is the fact that in the US the murder rate has been steadily declining for the last 17 years while in Britain it has been steadily been going up. During this time the US has been loosening it’s gun control laws while in the UK the government has tightened them.

If gun control truly was the panacea that many in Britain consider it to be that trend would be the exact opposite of what it is.

With the present economic crisis, things could be real bad in Britain this summer. It will be interesting to see what happens to the murder rate this year.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Can’t understand why any thinking person would consider this a bad thing. Obama is impressing me more and more.

why is that? you don’t like the way they look? There are guns that are much more portable and do much more damage that are not on the list.

What Bill Roberts said, just below what you wrote.

Except that you didn’t get his obvious sarcasm. He was using his post to support a pro-gun stance, which you seemingly abhor (hence your “i wouldn’t want to stay any longer than holiday in the US” comment).

Congratulations on living up to the stereotypy that Americans don’t get irony. But I know, it’s hard to detect online.

And yes, for the record, I’m anti gun. It’s funny, I live in a country where guns are illegal, and we have less gun crime. Amazing.

It is funny, I live in a country where guns are legal and we have even less crime.

Amen. The last thing I ever want is to be like fucking England.

You never, ever want the government to have the only guns in the land. Ever.[/quote]

Hey the criminals in England have guns as well so it’s not just the government.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
There are various important distinctions that should be made in the case of mental disturbances of various kinds.

A good illustration, perhaps, is that it has been demonstrated that when physically and psychologically normal cats are kept for a time in the company of cats having some profound mental disturbance – I forget what; it may have been that the disturbance was experimentally caused by drugs or brain surgery – the normal cats adopt the bizarre behavior of their new associates.

However, while the behavior may have been the same or similar, both the cause and the prognosis for recovery are completely different in the case of the two sorts of cats in question.

The normal cats exposed to the disturbed cats have far better prognosis for return to normal behavior on ending their exposure to disturbed cats and instead exposing them to other normal cats.

Whereas the disturbed cats cannot be cured simply by changing who they associate with.

In your instance, you really never had a reason to concern yourself with the questions at hand nor had any direct experience really. I would think you simply absorbed some attitudes from your environment.

When that is all there is to it, views are often easily changed, I think.[/quote]

That cat thing is BS, it’s actually from a novel but lots of people quote it as fact. The study was never done.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Admittedly it’s an area where I have opinions and little knowledge. I’ve always been anti-gun because the thought of guns scares me.

Bravo, Jab. Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

hoplophobia, (n), a mental disturbance characterized by an irrational aversion to weapons.

The term hoplophobia was coined by Jeff Cooper over thirty years ago, “in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is – a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position.”

His explanation of the term hoplophobia:

"It follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions. “Hoplon” is the Greek word for “instrument,” but refers synonymously to “weapon” since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for “terror” and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. . .

"We read of “gun grabbers” and “anti-gun nuts” but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who is irrational on the point under discussion. You cannot say calmly “Come, let us reason together” to a hoplophobe because that is what he is – a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed.

". . . The essence of the affliction is the belief that instruments cause acts. It may be that certain degenerate human beings are so far gone that they will use something just because it is there – a match, for instance. (I saw a bumper sticker in the Rockies that admonished “Prevent Forest Fires. Register Matches!”) One who will burn people because he has a match is the same as one who will shoot people because he has a gun, but the hoplophobe zeroes in on guns because he is – let’s face it – irrational.

"He will answer this by saying that we need matches (and cars, and motorcycles, and power saws, et cetera) but we do not need guns. He will not accept the idea that you may indeed need your guns, because he hates guns. He is afflicted by the grotesque notion that tools have a will of their own. He may admit that safe driving is a matter of individual responsibility, but he rejects the parallel in the matter of weapons. This may not be insanity, but it is clearly related to it.

"One cannot rationally hate or fear an inanimate object. Neither can he rationally hate or fear an object because of its designed purpose. Whether one approves of capital punishment or not, one cannot rationally fear a hemp rope. One who did, possibly because he once narrowly escaped hanging, would generally be referred to a shrink. When the most prominent hoplophobe in the United States Senate says that he abhors firearms because their purpose is to put bullets through things, he reinforces the impressions that many have formed about his capacity to reason.

“My point – and I hope it is clear – is that hoplophobia is a mental disturbance rather than a point of view. Differences of opinion – on economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or the neutron bomb – these we may hope to resolve by discussion. But we cannot so resolve a phobia. The mentally ill we cannot reach. But we can identify a form of mental illness for what it is, and so separate its victims from the policy considerations of reasonable people.”

This is very, very interesting to me. Where is the text from that you quoted and is that the whole text?

It is interesting to me primarily for two reasons. The first is that it presents a new (to me) view point on this matter. The second is that I share this viewpoint when it comes to religious people. I think it is very difficult to reason with religious or superstitious people because their beliefs are irrational, and I view it as a form of mental disturbance.

So I am naturally a little perturbed to have the same accusation (of possessing a mental disturbance) levelled at me, when I consider myself to be completely devoid of superstition and someone who strives to achieve rational thoughts in all areas.

My first thought, I think naturally was “I’m not a hoplophobe” because I am scared of things like how suddenly a gun can end life, but the analogy with cars and matches caused pause for thought.

I am different in one case from the typical hoplophobe described; my mind can always be changed, IF I’m presented with solid evidence. I need to learn more from both sides, so any more thoughtful replies are gratefully received.

What is going on in Britain is people have been systematically conditioned into fearing firearms. The sad part is there are all manner of things in their environment that could be used to kill them but they never even think about it.

Think about this. In the tube people will stand right at the edge of the platform waiting for the train without even thinking that someone could just give them a shove and they would be under the train. Millions of people do this every day without the slightest fear. But the thought of just one person owning a gun is absolutely terrifying because they worry about what if he’s a nutter.

What is going on with the British is mind control on a massive scale. It is just an unquestioned and readily accepted orthodoxy amongst the British that gun control is the reason why the rates of gun crime in the UK are different from the US. It never enters peoples conscious thoughts that there are could be any other reason. Because the British have been conditioned to think that way by the media.

Something I notice that people in the UK are woefully unaware of is the fact that in the US the murder rate has been steadily declining for the last 17 years while in Britain it has been steadily been going up. During this time the US has been loosening it’s gun control laws while in the UK the government has tightened them.

If gun control truly was the panacea that many in Britain consider it to be that trend would be the exact opposite of what it is.

With the present economic crisis, things could be real bad in Britain this summer. It will be interesting to see what happens to the murder rate this year. [/quote]

You keep on with this but it is a non-argument. You have not been able to own a gun for use in self defence for 80 years. That means that there is pretty much no-one in Britain alive who remembers a time when you could use a gun for self defence. The increase in gun crime is due to changes in Europe caused by several wars and the break up of the Eastern Bloc. This has increased the availability of guns. Coupled with the increasing influence of US culture (people copycating what they see in the US,) you get an increase in gun crime. The legislation is a total red herring.

This thread is about the attempt to ban ‘Assault’ weapons in the US. Trying to bring the UK in as a comparison is pointless, there is no reference to compare.

The main problem that I can see with Assault weapons is the name. Call the ‘Defence’ weapons or ‘Patriot’ Weapons and half the people that support the band would not be so bothered.

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Sorry, I’m from the UK, I live in England. Should have mentioned that I guess!

I’m at T-Nation for the great articles and advice.

Yeah, well here’s some advice- you need do some research on the effects of heavy firearms restrictions in your country.

UK is the world poster child for how heavy firearms restrictions and gun bans don’t work. With much stricter gun control than the US, your gun related crime rate increases are through the roof for the past several years.

http://www.bloggernews.net/14139

Jeez, this is just after 3 seconds of research. How could you even remotely come to the conclusion, apparently living in the middle of that clusterf*ck, that disarming law abiding citizens and enabling criminals could even remotely be working? And you’re trying to use the UK as an example???

Here’s the cherry on the cake-- even though the overall crime rate is apparently dropping, the GUN CRIME IS RISING!

Gun control is having the opposite effect on “gun related crimes”! (I use the phrase ‘gun related crimes’ with hesitation-- it’s a statistics ‘trick’).

Thanks for the links. In a quick search myself I also found links to articles from the past ten years along the same lines as the ones you gave, but I also found others talking about a decrease in gun crime. Admittedly it’s an area where I have opinions and little knowledge. I’ve always been anti-gun because the thought of guns scares me. But I’ve never felt the threat of crime or guns since I moved from South Africa, so I have never been pushed to learn more. Needless to say, I’ll be reading more on the matter.
[/quote]

The Guardian is the propaganda organ of the Labour government. Jacqui Smiths claims of crime going down were quickly disproven. The only thing in that article that can be counted on is if they say that gun crime went up then they are understating the increase. But at least it gives us some idea of the minimum increase.

Statistics from the British home office are very politicized because it is run by the ruling party in the government. It will be interesting to see how much they underestimate this years crimes increases.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Can’t understand why any thinking person would consider this a bad thing. Obama is impressing me more and more.

why is that? you don’t like the way they look? There are guns that are much more portable and do much more damage that are not on the list.

What Bill Roberts said, just below what you wrote.

Except that you didn’t get his obvious sarcasm. He was using his post to support a pro-gun stance, which you seemingly abhor (hence your “i wouldn’t want to stay any longer than holiday in the US” comment).

Congratulations on living up to the stereotypy that Americans don’t get irony. But I know, it’s hard to detect online.

And yes, for the record, I’m anti gun. It’s funny, I live in a country where guns are illegal, and we have less gun crime. Amazing.

It is funny, I live in a country where guns are legal and we have even less crime.

Amen. The last thing I ever want is to be like fucking England.

You never, ever want the government to have the only guns in the land. Ever.

Hey the criminals in England have guns as well so it’s not just the government.[/quote]

Well then, that’s not so bad. Is it?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Hey the criminals in England have guns as well so it’s not just the government.[/quote]

… and, the difference is?

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Fear is in fact the root of much of the anti-gun sentiment.

It underscores the importance of being a good representative for firearms ownership. Sometimes education works and I have seen it work personally. It is a good practice to try to respectfully educate naysayers first. If they are still venomous, then feel free to mock them.

Hell, I was scared shitless the first time I pulled a trigger all those years ago.

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet…[/quote]

The fact is that automobiles and doctors kill far more people and no one is calling for banning them. The entire gun grabbing debate is just about pathetic neutered nannystaters trying to control the rest of us.

In the grand scheme of things, my life is completely meaningless, so it doesn’t matter at all if I get killed in the process of shooting at some representative of the government trying to take my guns in the name of “following orders” or “public safety.” The national guard went around taking guns from law abiding citizens in New Orleans in the middle of a riot, for crying out loud. Who wants to live under such tyranny? We’re better off dead than living in fear of a government trying to deny people their right to self-defense.

In the UK and Australia, most gave up their guns without a fight. I sure hope we don’t repeat that here.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

This thread is about the attempt to ban ‘Assault’ weapons in the US. Trying to bring the UK in as a comparison is pointless, there is no reference to compare.[/quote]

Fair enough. For what it’s worth, though, I think Sifu had a valid point in the first part of his post, which indeed you have echoed: that people are largely the product of their environments, and that a Briton brought up in a culture which fears and distrusts firearms is going to have a completely different political outlook toward the issue than someone who has grown up in an environment where guns are regarded as useful and respected tools.[quote]

The main problem that I can see with Assault weapons is the name. Call the ‘Defence’ weapons or ‘Patriot’ Weapons and half the people that support the band would not be so bothered.[/quote]

Well, absolutely. And you’ve hit upon the meat of the issue. It’s not even the firearms themselves that would be banned, it’s a few cosmetic accoutrements that change absolutely nothing about the function of the firearms, simply make them look more menacing to the unschooled eye.

Look at the picture above. Most people would not look askance at the top rifle, whereas they might react with fear and antipathy toward the rifle on the bottom.

The fact is, however, they are exactly the same rifle.

This is nothing more than a fear-mongering power grab, engineered by people who care more about the emotional impact of words (what rational person, after all, would object to a ban of [b]WEAPONS[/b] that might be used to [b]ASSAULT[/b] people, including [i]INNOCENT CHILDREN[/i]?!?!) than what the words actually mean.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

What is going on in Britain is people have been systematically conditioned into fearing firearms. The sad part is there are all manner of things in their environment that could be used to kill them but they never even think about it.

Think about this. In the tube people will stand right at the edge of the platform waiting for the train without even thinking that someone could just give them a shove and they would be under the train. Millions of people do this every day without the slightest fear. But the thought of just one person owning a gun is absolutely terrifying because they worry about what if he’s a nutter.

What is going on with the British is mind control on a massive scale. It is just an unquestioned and readily accepted orthodoxy amongst the British that gun control is the reason why the rates of gun crime in the UK are different from the US. It never enters peoples conscious thoughts that there are could be any other reason. Because the British have been conditioned to think that way by the media.

Something I notice that people in the UK are woefully unaware of is the fact that in the US the murder rate has been steadily declining for the last 17 years while in Britain it has been steadily been going up. During this time the US has been loosening it’s gun control laws while in the UK the government has tightened them.

If gun control truly was the panacea that many in Britain consider it to be that trend would be the exact opposite of what it is.

With the present economic crisis, things could be real bad in Britain this summer. It will be interesting to see what happens to the murder rate this year.

You keep on with this but it is a non-argument. You have not been able to own a gun for use in self defence for 80 years. That means that there is pretty much no-one in Britain alive who remembers a time when you could use a gun for self defence. [/quote]

You are so full of shit. Back during the war everyone in Britain owned guns. When my parents were children they used to find guns just laying in the streets. My father had a whole collection of handguns he had found. My parents and my grandmother have all told me that.

Back then everyone had guns. And a lot of men were war veterans who had killed someone, so any inhibitions they had about killing had been overcome. But you didn’t see much violent crime because it was a different society and everyone was armed.

[quote]
The increase in gun crime is due to changes in Europe caused by several wars and the break up of the Eastern Bloc. [/quote]

There you go blame it on someone else. Blaming Britain’s woes on other countries has become the standard cop out. ie Gordon Brown not controlling the money supply is not what caused the UK banking system to melt down, it was entirely the fault of the Yanks.

If what you say is true why hasn’t Switzerland seen a massive increase in gun crimes? They have more guns and they are much closer to the Eastern block than the UK.

[quote]
This has increased the availability of guns. [/quote]

How could that happen? I thought the 1997 gun control act made it impossible to buy guns. What happened?

[quote]
Coupled with the increasing influence of US culture (people copycating what they see in the US,) you get an increase in gun crime. [/quote]

Back when my parents were kids not did everyone in the UK have guns but Hollywood gangster movies like Scarface had been quite popular for years.

You Guardianistas really do like to blame the US.

[quote]
The legislation is a total red herring. [/quote]

Do tell.

[quote]
This thread is about the attempt to ban ‘Assault’ weapons in the US. Trying to bring the UK in as a comparison is pointless, there is no reference to compare. [/quote]

What’s the matter Cock? Are you afraid that someone in the UK may be open minded enough to listen to what the Yanks have to say about gun ownership and make up his own mind?

[quote]
The main problem that I can see with Assault weapons is the name. Call the ‘Defence’ weapons or ‘Patriot’ Weapons and half the people that support the band would not be so bothered.[/quote]

It has become what is known as a “buzzword”.

A buzzword (also fashion word and vogue word) is a vague idiom, usually a neologism, that is common to managerial, technical, administrative, and political work environments. Although meant to impress the listener with the speaker’s pretense to knowledge, buzzwords render sentences opaque, difficult to understand and question, because the buzzword does not mean what it denominates, yet does mean other things it ought not mean. [1] George Orwell, in “Politics and the English Language,” wrote that people use buzzwords because they are convenient. It is much easier to copy the words and phrases that someone invented than it is to come up with one’s own.[2]

Buzzwords differ from jargon; the speaker tries to impress the listener with obscure meanings, while jargon (ideally) has a defined technical meaning ? if only to the given specialists; however, the advertising hyperbole written to sell new technologies, ironically, often converts technical (machine) terms into buzzwords, that then are used by the salesman in his selling the technology to the listener. In the event, mainstream usage of buzzwords, fashion words, and vogue words does register some to the dictionary; however, once in the dictionary, the buzzword’s meaning(s) might no longer correspond with the mainstream and “street” usages.