That’s right. A Utah psychiatrist says that if you think guns should be banned, you probably need professional help.
Dr. Sarah Thompson, also executive director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, says that most advocates of victim disarmament, or preventing law-abiding citizens from obtaining and keeping firearms, are thinking irrationally and using several common defense mechanisms, such as denial, projection and reaction formation, to protect themselves from the truth.
Dr. Thompson also provides some well thought out advice on how more rational people can communicate more effectively with people who advocate victim disarmament because they are laboring under one or more of these psychological impairments.
The article is so worth reading that I couldn’t even figure out what to excerpt from it, so just go read the whole thing.
But keep in mind that if you are such an advocate of gun control, you probably aren’t going to get anything out of this, as you likely don’t even realize that you have these psychological problems. But you could always print the article out, take it to your next session, and ask your psychiatrist if you are suffering from any of these problems. (You might also want to ask your psychiatrist if he or she is suffering from any of those problems, too.)
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3578 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Firas
Mar 01, 2006
This is so unbelievably stupid. Laws are made by combining reasoning, values and principle. Neither pure pragmatism nor pure principle-derived reasoning suffices. Obviously there’s going to be a measure of ‘that sounds icky’ in deciding against some things (such as child labour, or letting the average citizen walk around with devices designed specifically for forceful brutality).
What an incredibly moronic way to engage in political debate: ‘you’re sick in the head!’
Michael Hampton
Mar 01, 2006
That’s funny, I always thought laws were made by combining lobbyists, activists and money.
As for the issue at hand, a political debate is not possible with someone suffering from delusions. Those delusions must be addressed before that person is capable of addressing the issue in a reasonable manner.
Anonymous
Mar 01, 2006
“Delusion” implies the person is sick. Perceiving correctly would be a state of health, perceiving incorrectly would be to function poorly. But if you do a math problem and make an undetected mistake, you are not “deluded” in the belief your answer is incorrect. You are merely incorrect because you did not check your work.
Excerpts that demonstrate this:
“You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you.”
The gun control advocate has an opinion. (If you say that won’t work, he’ll say nothing is perfect.)
“If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games.”
Ditto opinion, he makes a prediction.
“I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns.”
My favorite of the four. The person does not just believe we’re “modern”, possessed of an advanced civilization of law. He believes he has a link to the spirit world, or the unseen energy world of which we may be a part. He may be correct that a pacifist who lacks the desire to own a gun has a desirable state of mind. But he says you should share his belief.
“I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me.”
Notwithstanding that people in large cities don’t know what sort of person the Police Officer who rescues them will be like. I tend to like cops but they’ve been culturally bred towards paramilitarism in recent years. Michael Moore interviewed the Michigan Militia in “Bowling for Columbine” and I thought they seemed normal and sensible.
The media, public schooling and political tricksters have over a long period of time put these incorrect thoughts into people’s heads. The culture was cleverly manipulated to believe these things and that can’t be fixed without laying out the facts so a person can understand how their mind works, how their conclusion is insupportable.
I used to accept gun control as a matter of course and easily understood these arguments when they were explained to me. Ditto Income Taxation and Statism generally. If a person can reevaluate his beliefs logically and truthfully, he can see his mistakes.
But if he wants the result, like gun control or the proceeds of your work (Income Tax) and he and those in agreement with him outnumber you, they can make a law to force you to comply. Again, that won’t be fixed without teaching facts and mental skills to others, to undo what the tricksters did.
J. Bruno
Mar 01, 2006
It becomes a psychological disorder when the individual has understood the argument for guns, yet still denies its validity without a meaningful counter-argument.
mr.ed
Mar 04, 2006
This is interesting, as guns are substitute penises for so many men. Is that psychiatric enough for ya? Eh, Dick?