A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

[Karl/PA]

Not sure if anyone has seen this, it's a long read, but definitely a good one.

It is written by a licensed psychiatrist and digs pretty deep into why people are actually anti-gun, to understand not how they feel, but why they feel the way they do. It also dives a bit into how to show them the other side, how to diffuse a situation, etc. Unlike most pieces written either for or against, it actually includes references and historical fact to support the idea behind it. Enjoy (if you have the time)

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/Raging Against Self Defense-Thompson.html

 

[Brychan]

So next session some needs to ask Frosh why he thinks everyone wants to kill him?

 

[Mr H]

Maybe he thinks everyone wants to kill his voters???

 

[FrankZ]

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[tball]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting

 

[MDFF2008]

Excellent article.

I think Frosh would fall under the ideologue category though.

 

[MJD438]

Excellent article.

I think Frosh would fall under the ideologue category though.

I was going to say demagogue, but I think I agree with you that ideologue fits him better.

 

[MDFF2008]

I posted this on the MSI Facebook Page.

 

[Happa Haole]

I found it very informative.

 

[ALBY]

psychology is junk science, even when it is supporting your position.

it looks like science. it feels like science... but it is junk.

 

[Vendicator]

psychology is junk science, even when it is supporting your position.

it looks like science. it feels like science... but it is junk.

How does that make you feel?

 

[Half-cocked]

psychology is junk science, even when it is supporting your position.

it looks like science. it feels like science... but it is junk.

That's just your ego talking. Or maybe your id. Or your superego. In any case, you obviously have repressed sexual feelings for your mother. Here, let me write you a prescription for happy pills!

 

[gmhowell]

psychology is junk science, even when it is supporting your position.

it looks like science. it feels like science... but it is junk.

Thank you for your opinion Tom. BTW, Katie and her body thetans seem to be doing much better these days. Suri says hi.

 

[Half-cocked]

Thank you for your opinion Tom. BTW, Katie and her body thetans seem to be doing much better these days. Suri says hi.

In the grand scheme of things, there's not much difference between Freud and L. Ron Hubbard.

Fortunately, modern psychiatry has mostly moved away from his wackiest ideas. Sadly, though, quack psychotherapy has probably had more victims than Scientology.

 

[Citizen]

Gotta love Progressive logic...

 

[DirtyBrad]

I think this is a poorly constructed and poorly written article. My vote would be against officially connecting it to MSI. I'm sure I'll sound crusty, but I care about our side being taken seriously and I think things like this hurt us.

The following passage is an example:

Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

Whether you agree with these statements or not, it's impossible to take an article seriously that includes them with no citation whatsoever and then goes on to use them as pillars of its argument. To me, it's analogous to writing an anti-gun article with, "Not coincindentally, among gun-owners there are many 'wannabe-Rambos' who have little sense of reality outside of their hero fantasies" and then going on to explain gun-owner behavior based on those supposed people. You cannot make such gigantic leaps with zero backing in an article that presents itself as scholarly.

The rest of the article reads to me like a Psychology 101 paper. There is plenty of fantastic writing on this subject that is well-documented and can actually be read as unbiased and well-informed. I suggest that the good people at MSI associate only with that level of excellence.

 

[mbz300sdl]

View attachment 71069

Gotta love Progressive logic...

This

 

[ea689c]

I think this is a poorly constructed and poorly written article. My vote would be against officially connecting it to MSI. I'm sure I'll sound crusty, but I care about our side being taken seriously and I think things like this hurt us.

The following passage is an example:



Whether you agree with these statements or not, it's impossible to take an article seriously that includes them with no citation whatsoever and then goes on to use them as pillars of its argument. To me, it's analogous to writing an anti-gun article with, "Not coincindentally, among gun-owners there are many 'wannabe-Rambos' who have little sense of reality outside of their hero fantasies" and then going on to explain gun-owner behavior based on those supposed people. You cannot make such gigantic leaps with zero backing in an article that presents itself as scholarly.

The rest of the article reads to me like a Psychology 101 paper. There is plenty of fantastic writing on this subject that is well-documented and can actually be read as unbiased and well-informed. I suggest that the good people at MSI associate only with that level of excellence.

+1 completely agree.

 

[Crisium]

It might be fun to try the mirror technique "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?"

Over all it reads more like an opinion piece.

 

[Scott7891]