Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah
Thompson, M.D.
righter@therighter.com
"You don't need to have a gun; the police will
protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and
neighborhood basketball games."
"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."
"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard
these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even
woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to
these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong?
Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their
arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
How can you communicate with
these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?
One approach to help you
deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once
you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate
more effectively with them.
Defense Mechanisms
Projection
About a year ago I received
an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose
to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms
because he didn't want to be
murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this
person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded
by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of
course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to
be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and
more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1
How does my correspondent
"know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What
he was really saying was that if he
had a gun, he might murder his
neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played
their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals
call projection – unconsciously
projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one
doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings
are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4
so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.
Projection is a
defense mechanism. Defense
mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from
feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without
our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden"
feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really
wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that
other people want to kill him.
Projection is a particularly
insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from
dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives
everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6
All people have violent, and
even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd
like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill
you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill
anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer
from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can
acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having
to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.
Some people, however, are
unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They
may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps
they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose
control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people"
never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.
This is especially true now
that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative
emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but
that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that
feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To
protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms
to avoid owning their own normal emotions.
Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger
their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with
reality, not how to avoid it.8
(This discussion of
psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or
misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti-
gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms,
and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain
political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)
Denial
Another defense mechanism
commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is
denial. Denial is simply refusing
to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider
a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his
clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may
get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is
having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so
threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so
denies its existence.
Anti-gun people do the same
thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals
attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has
been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect
everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates
that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that
firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your
family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament
nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks
insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect
you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is
everything from mugging to mass murder.
Anti-gun people who refuse
to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian
disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling
helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government
will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves
from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered
helpless and vulnerable.
Reaction
Formation
Reaction
formation
is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction
formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire
into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous
of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or
sister.
Likewise, a person who
harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted
pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often
such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they
are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such
as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal
welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take
precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the
angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm
the people he hates without having to know he hates them.
This is not meant to
disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined,
vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief
itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his
beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in
a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by
setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere
pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons
with whom they might disagree on various issues.
Contrast the sincere
pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat
and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals"
– or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people
have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For
example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self
defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual,
pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is
generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially
acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.
In the case of anti-gun
people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their
fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to
"violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious
harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to
defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a
psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.
Defense Mechanisms Are Not
Mental Illnesses
Defense mechanisms are
normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental
illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they
may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't
necessarily mean they are "mentally ill".
Some defense mechanisms,
however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is
healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional
life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or
the well-being of others. Young children utilize
projection and
denial much more commonly than do
healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense
mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of
external reality will be seriously distorted."17
Defense mechanisms are also
frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense
mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses
projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As
a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more
defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to
others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a
world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and
he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his
own is so horribly out of control.
Also, it's important to
remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms.
Some people suffer from gun phobia18,
an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the
anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians,
so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an
authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But 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,19
something most anti-gun folks will never admit.
Defense
mechanisms distort reality
Because defense mechanisms
distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses
them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains
why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in
believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if
allowed to own firearms.
People who legally carry
concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal
activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person
who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms
training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is
highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his
facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the
destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no
sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally
obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by
ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21
The Common Thread: Rage
In my experience, the common
thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage
than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they
can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense
mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as
seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who
have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and
why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? 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.
Identity
as Victim
If I were to summarize this
article in three sentences, they would be:
(1) People who identify themselves as "victims"
harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not
victims."
(2) In order psychologically
to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable
them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting
responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status
as "victims."
(3) Gun owners are
frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing
and able to prevent their own victimization.
Thus the concept of
"identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups
choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the
same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have
historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an
equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally
victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality.
Why, for example, would a
6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why
would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a
"victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on
government disability NOT regard herself as a victim?
I would argue it's because
the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are
dependent on being victims – not because they have actually been victimized,
but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely,
the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for
her own success or failure.
In fact, many people who
have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil
strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a
conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."
Special
Treatment and Misleading Leaders
Two reasons for these groups
to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status,
members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas,
affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs.
Second, these people have
been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a
victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated
in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of
life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever
more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These
leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery
and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is
irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of
sexual slavery.24
Likewise, the NAACP is suing
firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is
especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend
themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of
self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders,
especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun
control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the
teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law
enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't
resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate
gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless.
Victimhood is good business
for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend
upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on
members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation,
these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping
their members defenseless – and therefore dependent.
Anti-gun
groups love victims!
From my observations, pro-victimhood
is a feature of all of the
anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every
organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be
helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every
aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial,
ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to
the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to
live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are
inner-city minorities.
If these organizations truly
cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe
and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to
defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in
fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an
American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend
yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free.
The
psychological price of being a victim
In our current society,
victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks.
Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe
that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously – and that
they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being
mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often,
serious depression.
But for victims to show rage
openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered
woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even
her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status
as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim,
the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life.
So, unable psychologically
to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense
mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each
other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain
control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy".
Say NO to
being a victim!
But no one needs to be a
victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and
knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes
and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and
disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be
looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to
enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people.
Communicating with
anti-gun people
How can you communicate more
effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms?
There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should
keep in mind.
Anger and
attacks do not work
Most gun owners, when
confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is
understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and
discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would
seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from
post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from
such places – but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is
counterproductive.
It's not helpful to attack
the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more
fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the
person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will
help him to make informed decisions.
Be Gentle
You should never try to
break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms
protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that
protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense
mechanisms operate unconsciously,
it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out
that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help
the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This
cannot be done in one hour or one day.
As you reach out to people
in this way, you need to deal with both the
illogical thought processes
involved and the emotional reactions
that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought
processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun
person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are
seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed
citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life.
Reversing Irrational
thoughts
The
Mirror Technique
One approach that can be
helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a
neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail
correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had
guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you
simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not
directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see
his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that
his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he
may start to question his position.
Another example might be,
"Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You
might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious
children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely
asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.
Of course the anti-gun
person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children,
but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how
using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children
with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and
cookies.
It's important to ask
"open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such
questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is
saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage
him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership.
The "What
Would You Do?" Technique
Once you have a dialogue
going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a
hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses,
and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult
or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to
violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection
again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would
shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so.
Don't try to "win" the
argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember
that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one
likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant,
condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince
him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people – who should not be trusted
with guns!
Defusing Emotional
reactions
The "You
Are There" Technique
Rational arguments alone are
not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than
"think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun
person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms
with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses
along with his thoughts.
One way to do this is to put
the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what
he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the
parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her
throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have
a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes,
the police still haven't arrived?"
Just let him answer the
questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his
answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional
responses.
The Power
of Empathy
Another emotion-based
approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the
plight of the anti-gun person.
Imagine for a moment how you
would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you
and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for
the inevitable to occur.
Not very pleasant, is it?
This is the world in which
opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives
when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co-
workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified
people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being
assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the
only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team,
workplace) – and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's
essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib
or sarcastic, this won't work.
Using empathy works in
several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction.
Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of
gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a
sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly
conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person
with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity
to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is
so prevalent.
This empathy technique is
also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become
hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns
save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With
empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about
whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can
comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million
people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children".
You should not expect any of
these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the
anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely,
and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks
into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday
develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can
take months or years. But it does work!
Corrective Experiences
Perhaps the most effective
way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective
experiences30. Corrective
experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his
ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening
way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt
to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is
wrong by your behavior, not by
arguing.
For example, the anti-gun
person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners
are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated
"redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal,
socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your
M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your
daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to
correct his misconceptions.
If you have used the above
techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have
demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not
abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people
who care about their families, friends and even strangers.
As many gun owners have
already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually
exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell
someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own
experience favorably.
For example, if you're
dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact
regularly and have a generally good relationship – a coworker, neighbor,
church member, etc. – you might indirectly
refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a
gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that
would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider
saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed
to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an
individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences
before using this approach.
First-hand experience
Ultimately, your goal is to
take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to
accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will
need some preliminary experience.
First, you want to encourage
the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels
most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds
of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to
start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm.
This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to
tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms
safety.
Encourage the newcomer to
ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information
in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to
offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be
careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And
remember this is not the time
to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy
theories, or any kind of political talk!
Next, you can invite your
friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust
each other with loaded guns, you should
consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a
gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will
experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the
need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure
you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try
shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much
recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her
appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and
double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand.
Remember that just visiting
the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun
owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate,
and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the
elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a
single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces.
In my experience, most
people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to
make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before
allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a
newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to
provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll
recruit a new firearms enthusiast.
But even if your guest
decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable
lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a
firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will
know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know
that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him.
Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to
fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows – a few months or years later he
may decide to become a gun owner.
Why these
techniques do not always work
You should remember that you
will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified
and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without
professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and
refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes
sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A
few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not
recovered.
You will also not be
successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and
Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms
ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money
from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in
saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their
actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their
selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond
to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31
Conclusion
By better understanding
advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple
techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more
effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will
enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of
firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety.
Educating others about
firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done
one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The
average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether
or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not
he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self-
defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a
gun.
© 2000, Sarah Thompson.
Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance,
www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter,
www.therighter.com, a monthly column on individual rights.
Notes
1
Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press.
Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999.
2
Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2.
3
Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical
Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20.
4Brenner,
Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor
Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn &
Bacon. Pp. 432-433.
5
Brenner 1973. P. 91.
6
Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432.
7
Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook
of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137.
8
"Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000.
9
Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London
Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.
10
Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. [Analyzes the
law in 54 U.S. jurisdictions]; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618
(7th Cir. 1982) [no federal constitutional right to police protection.]
11
Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence
and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187.
12
Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
13
Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.
14
Brenner 1973, p. 85.
15
Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian
Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 [fascism exalts
nature, animals and environment].
16
Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54.
17
Brenner 1973, p. 92.
18
Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219.
19
American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410.
20
Lott 1998, pp. 11-12.
21
Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential
killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence
have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system."
Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime
Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69
(Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093.
22
Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14).
http://www.jewishworldreview.com
23x
Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful
memories. Jewish World Review (July 12).
24
Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance".
http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/TerrorTortureandResistance.html
25
Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999.
http://www.naacp.org/president/speeches/90th%20Annual%20Meeting.htm
26
Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000.
http://uahc.org/yoffie/mmm.html
27
"If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud,
Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah
Publications. Vol. 2, 72a.
28
Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and
Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of
Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing
Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5.
29
Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37.
30
Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp.
216-217.
31
Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1
Originally published by:
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745
www.jpfo.org
