Contrasting Fears: Disarmists v Second Amendment Supporters

Gun Watch ^ | 7 February, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

dis·arm·ist   (ds-ärmst)    alt.  dis·arm·en·ter (ds-ärmn-tr)
n.

1. A political operative who works to disarm political opposition through the use of irrational and/or emotional arguments.

2. A person who believes that disarming citizens will reduce crime or unjustified violence, in spite of contrary evidence or facts.

3. A person who wishes to disarm others because they do not trust themselves to bear arms responsibly.

Disarmists often claim that armed citizens are afraid, fearmongers, or cowardly.   All of these accusations are projections of the disarmists' own fears.   Most armed Americans are less fearful than those who wish to disarm them, but both sides have fears, just of different things and groups.

Who or what do the disarmists fear, and who or what, do the second amendment supporters fear?

Second amendment supporters fear: Tyrannical governments
 
Disarmists fear: Limited government.

Second amendment supporters fear: Criminals

Disarmists fear: Their fellow citizens.

Second amendment supporters fear: Terrorists

Disarmists fear: Their fellow citizens

Second amendment supporters fear: Being helpless

Disarmists fear: Being responsible for self defense

Second amendment supporters fear: Being disarmed

Disarmists fear: Guns

These different sets of fears stem from different assumptions about the nature of reality.   If these assumptions reflect deep seated, basic beliefs that form the core of a persons' understanding of the universe, they are almost impossible to change with mere facts or ordinary evidence.  But facts have a way of overcoming false beliefs over time, because a new generation does not have the same accumulated investment in beliefs that the old generation did.

The idea that fellow citizens are more to be feared than criminals and terrorists  stems from a discredited theory that the groups are all basically the same.  You often see it in comments on stories about citizen disarmament.

A second amendment supporter will write: You do not have to fear law abiding citizens. 

A disarmist will reply: They are only law abiding because they have not committed a crime yet. 

The disarmist theory is the progressive elite theory of homicide: murderers are just ordinary people who "go off" while a weapon is present, and kill someone.  We now know that is not correct for the vast majority of murderers.

The opposing theory of homicide is the "Trust the People" model.  In it, most murders are committed by a tiny group of violent people who are easily identified in society by their violent past records.  Most citizens do not commit violent crimes, and will never commit violent crimes.  This model has been validated by the work of Professor David Kennedy, co-chair of the National Network for Safe Communities.

Only a small percentage of the population are hardcore disarmists that operate while rejecting facts and logic that disagree with their core beliefs.  Most supporters of citizen disarmament  have not been exposed to the arguments put forward by second amendment supporters.   When they hear and read the actual arguments, they often become neutral, or converted to second amendment supporters. 

It is common for supporters of citizen disarmament to be converted to second amendment supporters, especially among academics who study the issue.  It is exceeding rare for the opposite to occur.  Every time a new proposition is proposed to advance the disarmists agenda, more second amendment supporters are created, in three stages.

First, a new push for restrictive legislation is mounted, based on emotion driven fear.

Second, the issue is debated in the media, online, and in person.  Facts are presented.

Third, some percentage of people who were uninformed, become educated, and converted from the disarmist camp to second amendment supporters.  This ratchet effect is how support for a ban on handguns has dropped from 60 percent in 1959 to 26 percent in 2014.

Both groups have fears.   But the facts have been in favor of the second amendment supporters, and have discredited the theories of the disarmsists.  It is why the disarmists advise all their followers to use emotion, and to pass legislation quickly, before it can be debated.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Second Amendment supporters fear the elite.

Disarmist fear the people.

[CGASMIA68]

“Disarmist”..Excellent word/term that needs to be trumpeted in all articles about Bloomberg and moms against guns,the entire lot needs to be relabeled as “Disarmists” constantly until it sticks

[grobdriver]

What the hell happened in 1980 that caused the (apparent) sudden shift against firearms?

[lostboy61]

I know for me it was being chased by a black rifle for three blocks in 1980. Last year a gang of 30 round clips jumped me and I almost didn’t get away. I don’t go near gun stores or gun ranges as I don’t want to wet myself again.

[deoetdoctrinae]

Click the Pic

Support Free Republic

[trebb]

What the hell happened in 1980 that caused the (apparent) sudden shift against firearms?

It seems to have become apparent starting in the late '60s and moving up through '80 and beyond. My guess would be that, after Johnson's "Great Society" and all the anti-government movements, many folks started seeing the trend toward tyranny and began to wake up - too bad they still under-estimated how perverse the "liberal" movement was and where it was heading.

[elcid1970]

Actually the shift against firearms (meaning ostracism of firearms owners) began in earnest after the Kennedy assassination in 1963. The antigun movement acquired teeth with the passage of the 1968 gun control act, rammed through by LBJ following the King & RFK assassinations.

1980 saw the election of Ronald Reagan who would go on to roll back much of the 1960’s antigun hysteria.

And hysterical describes the disarmists of today, as CCW permits proliferate, mostly in the hands of people whom the disarmists disagree with.

[AloneInMass]

I believe that would be Reagan being shot in ‘81.

[grobdriver]

The way I read the chart is that "should not be a law banning..." was on the increase until 1980 - the "should be a ban" was declining from '59 to '80.
At the 1980 point gun rights seemed to have taken a ~15 point hit but has slowly fought back to present day levels.

Seems reversed from your comments - at the 2013 point the "should not be" line is much higher than the "should be" line which matches my perception of reality... so something happened in 1980 that caused a drop in support for handguns and it wasn't until (according to this) '87-'88 that we started climbing back up.

[grobdriver]

I think that must be it.

I don't recall that era very well - was overseas for most of it.

[marktwain]

Yes, I think the election or Ronald Reagan reduced the anxiety that people feared from gun laws. The concealed carry movement did not really start until 1987 and only really took off in 1994.

[afsnco]

It’s truly amazing how much of the disarmist belief system is purely psychological projection. They know THEY couldn’t be trusted with a firearm, primarily because they function at an irrational, effeminate, emotional level 100% of the time. So they project their own irrationality onto others, narcissistically believing everybody is just as irrational as they are.

In one point I agree with them: That THEY shouldn’t be permitted to have firearms.

[marktwain]

It is a core leftist doctrine that “everybody is the same, all over the world”.

If you really believe that, then you are going to believe that everyone is just like you.

And if you routinely lie, cheat, and steal, then you believe that everyone else does so as well.