Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality

[Blotan Hunka]

And most confrontations that don't make it into the news are small scale and are resolved without the use of firearms with little or no injury to either party. Having a gun on hand under those circumstances just might make someone another statistic, when it doesn't have to end this way.

You might be attacked or accosted in some way someday. Maybe under the law, and under the circumstances, you might be within your rights to shoot the person. But that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

Feel free to bet your life on that. As long as Im not forced to take the same gamble. Someone who legally carries a gun all the time is no different IMO than someone who carries a folding knife all the time. As a matter of fact according to a few threads here, the guy with the knife is MORE dangerous than the guy with the gun right?

 

[Flying Crane]

Feel free to bet your life on that. As long as Im not forced to take the same gamble. Someone who legally carries a gun all the time is no different IMO than someone who carries a folding knife all the time. As a matter of fact according to a few threads here, the guy with the knife is MORE dangerous than the guy with the gun right?

well, we all make our own choices about it. I choose to not carry. It works for me.

I'll make a suggestion, just for kicks, for those who carry all the time: If you don't work in Law Enforcement where carrying a gun is necessary, try leaving it home for a week. Just to see how you feel about it. I'd be interested in hearing some feedback. Personally, I think I would find carrying it all the time a bit burdensome. Maybe a few people will consider it and give it a try. I'd love to hear about it.

As far as knives go, I agree, in certain curcumstances they can be more dangerous than a gun. I don't find it necessary to carry a knife either.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Legal carry is more about the mindset of being prepared and responsible than it is about fear IMO.

 

[Flying Crane]

Legal carry is more about the mindset of being prepared and responsible than it is about fear IMO.

I sincerely hope so. While I may never see a need to carry, at least this indicates a healthier mindset than fear does.

 

[Kacey]

I tend to agree with Flying Crane. The author is using psychobabble and fear-mongering to convince people who don't want to carry that they should - even that they are being irresponsible when they don't. The symptoms that the author lists are actual psychological syndromes, and I don't dispute that - I do, however, dispute some of the conclusions the author comes to. Certainly, there are people who have issues with projection, denial, reaction formation, and so on - and some small portion of them may actually avoid guns because of those issues. I don't dispute that either. What I do dispute is that every person - or even most people - who choose not to carry guns have a psychological ailment as a reason. I know lots of people who don't own guns; I know lots of people who know how to use guns who don't own guns; I know lots of people who own guns who don't carry; I know a very few people who own guns and do carry - mostly for reasons relating to their jobs.

As FC said, if you want to carry, and you are legally allowed to do so, that's your choice; for myself, I don't feel I need it. Those who carry may think I am naive; they may agree with the author of this article and think I am displaying one, or several, psychological symptoms; however, according to gunsafe.org (just so no one accuses me of using statistics from anti-gun sites):

What fraction of U.S. residents owns firearms?...28%

Now, if the author is correct, then 72% of U.S. residents are demonstrating one, or several, psychological symptoms, solely because they choose not to own guns. Somehow, I have my doubts that this could be the case for that large a number of people.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Good points Kacey.

I read it as not applying to everyone who doesn't own or carry a gun, but upon re-reading it, I can see, and even agree with your interpretation. There are people in both camps who are motivated by fear.

Jeff

 

[Flying Crane]

The author is using psychobabble and fear-mongering to convince people who don't want to carry that they should - even that they are being irresponsible when they don't....

Yeah, the thing with this article, being written by a Psychiatrist, is that it implies this Doctor is in a position to analyze as an entire group of people across the nation, everyone who is pro gun control. And that diagnosis is: some form of mental disorder. It is misleading to the extreme and the examples used are very poor.

It goes on to read like an infomercial, listing off a bunch of ways to discuss gun issues with those mentally diseased people who are anti-gun. Well I'll tell ya what folks, those techniques could be used equally well in reverse, against the gun-rights people. The whole thing had a feel like I was being sold on a multi-level marketing scheme.

As a gun rights advocate, I actually found the whole article insulting.

 

[Flying Crane]

Good points Kacey.

I can see, and even agree with your interpretation. There are people in both camps who are motivated by fear.

Jeff

Agreed.

 

[matt.m]

You know I am not naive, I understand the importance of guns. However, I have used firearms extensively. Being a Marine Corps vet I have even shot people while overseas.

I suppose this is exactly why I don't own a firearm, I know what they can do to people. I also know that the vast majority don't have nearly as many hours behind firearms that I do and that makes me very nervous.

 

[7starmantis]

I sincerely hope so. While I may never see a need to carry, at least this indicates a healthier mindset than fear does.

I think it is. I dont carry all the time either, but when I do its not out of fear of being attacked but rather just being prepared and ready. I actually did the "leave your gun at home for a week" test (someone else advocated it as well) and I felt the same, except one thing happened that I thought had the real possibility of turning ugly quickly and I had the thought that I wish I had carried that day and it made me realize that I never want to be in a situation needing the gun wishing I had it. So I generally keep it with me. I go to school and put it in the glove box of my car, carry it on my person at night when going to the store etc. I view it the same as my fighting training, I'm not doing it out of fear, but just being prepared for whatever may come my way. I see the concealed handgun as just another step towards a more complete state of preparedness, thats all.

7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

I actually did the "leave your gun at home for a week" test (someone else advocated it as well) and I felt the same, except one thing happened that I thought had the real possibility of turning ugly quickly and I had the thought that I wish I had carried that day and it made me realize that I never want to be in a situation needing the gun wishing I had it. So I generally keep it with me. I

7sm

I appreciate the feedback. May I ask: what were the circumstances that made you wish you had the gun, when you did not? Maybe I somehow live a sheltered life here in San Francisco, but even when I have been hassled in the street, I have never felt like I wished I had a gun to deal with the situation. Thx.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Oh, I forgot about that.

There have been several ocassions when I didn't carry for a week or longer. Usually visiting my relatives, most of which live out of state.

First thing you notice is that it's a LOT more comfortable with out a hunk of steel or polymer digging into your sides.

I did have this nagging feeling of oh hell, now something bad is going to happen, and my pistols are miles away.

But now I can carry there, so it's not an issue.

Jeff

 

[Flying Crane]

Oh, I forgot about that.

There have been several ocassions when I didn't carry for a week or longer. Usually visiting my relatives, most of which live out of state.

First thing you notice is that it's a LOT more comfortable with out a hunk of steel or polymer digging into your sides.

I did have this nagging feeling of oh hell, now something bad is going to happen, and my pistols are miles away.

But now I can carry there, so it's not an issue.

Jeff

Fair enough. I guess I've never had that nagging feeling that something bad is going to happen. I dunno, I guess it's just not how I see things, maybe.

 

[KenpoTex]

Good discussion everyone!

But I personally see the notion of carrying a firearm, at least all the time, as being based on fear.

But for the average person who thinks they need to be armed all the time, I think that is just silly, or worse, paranoid.

But turning yourself into a walking arsenal every day of the week, when you don't even work in law enforcement just seems somehow twisted and at least inappropriate. Sure, I guess it's legal, but it doesn't strike me as smart...

...but that is the kind of person I would stay away from because it makes me nervous. Not the weapons themselves, but the mentality behind a decision to carry that way.

Flying Crane, you said that you found the article misleading and insulting because of the author's practice of characterizing gun-control advocates as people who have some sort of psychological disorder, or at least some serious issues with fear. However, in the portions I quoted from some of your posts, You make the same characterizations about those who choose to go armed every day.

I'll make a suggestion, just for kicks, for those who carry all the time: If you don't work in Law Enforcement where carrying a gun is necessary, try leaving it home for a week. Just to see how you feel about it. I'd be interested in hearing some feedback. Personally, I think I would find carrying it all the time a bit burdensome. Maybe a few people will consider it and give it a try. I'd love to hear about it.

Why would I choose to leave my most effective self-defense tool at home? I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. My weapon is not a security-blanket or a teddy-bear. I don't carry it because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. In fact, I'll admit that it's a real pain in the *** sometimes to have 2 of 3 pounds or extra weight on my belt. However, I choose to carry it because I never want to find myself in a situation where I am not as prepared as I can possibly be to deal with a threat to my safety or that of someone who I feel a duty to protect.

 

[Lisa]

Fair enough. I guess I've never had that nagging feeling that something bad is going to happen. I dunno, I guess it's just not how I see things, maybe.

FC, I completely understand that feeling. I too have never had that feeling nor have I ever been faced with a situation where I wish I had been armed. Guess I am lucky (knock on wood) However, I also don't have the idea that the police will always be around to protect me, thus the reason I have an alarm system in my house, a big dog and other things in place to protect my home and my children.

I have no problem with the right to carry. I have a problem with the fact that I am not allowed that right, don't get me started on that one . Don't know if I would if I could, just would like the opportunity to decide for myself. I am pretty sure my husband would have one, whether or not he carried everywhere is questionable.

I see it as a personal view of need. If you feel the need for that type of personal safety you should have the right to use it. If you don't then that should be okay too. Doesn't mean you have hidden psychological problem or fear mongering. Just means your experiences in life have cultivated you to think and see things a certain way.

Good discussion by the way.

 

[Cruentus]

I see it as a personal view of need. If you feel the need for that type of personal safety you should have the right to use it. If you don't then that should be okay too.

That is really what it boils down too. There is nothing wrong with choosing to not carry a firearm, just as long as you own up to your personal choice and are willing to accept the consequences of that action. Same if you choose to carry.

The part that is a bit dysfunctional is when people want to project their own personal choice on someone else. Yes, there are some people of a very small minority of pro-gun advocates who don't seem to respect a personal choice to not carry. But, let's not try to paint everything with a broad brush for the sake of political correctness here. There are many people in comparison who choose not to carry who don't respect a persons choice to carry, and in fact want to take that right away or put limits on that right according to their worldview. One has to ask why that is.

The author has given a few reasons why certain individuals would choose to be anti-gun, even in the face of logic and overwhelming evidence against the position. His view is relatively accurate in many cases, but not all or even in most cases. I also gave what I feel is a relatively accurate reason why people choose to take an anti-gun stance; one that I feel fits more appropriately to the majority as it reflects a societal epidemic that permeates more then just the so called 'anti-gun world'.

I have seen a lot of straw men so far in this thread, but no statement to logically refute either position.

On a different but related note, one has to also ask why people choose to misinterpret the authors message or argument? Can someone point to where the author is saying that all people who choose not to carry should choose differently even if they do so irresponsibly, or that all people who choose not to carry have a psychological ailment? He is giving psychoanalytical reasoning for a segment of the populace who advocate victim disarmament; a fairly good assessment, but not one that is meant to fit every individual. So, why would some of you who choose not to carry interpret this as an attack on others like you?

Also, one has to ask, why someone who chooses to carry, who is choosing to take responsibility for his/her own self-defense, would be painted by those who don't carry as "paranoid" and "fearful." Why can't the answer simply be, "I choose not to carry because I don't want the hassle, and I am willing to accept those consequences?" Why does it have to be an entire rigimarol about how there isn't that much crime out really, or how those who are usually armed are not intelligent, or how just because a shooting may be justified that doesn't mean it is right, or how it's a good thing (for some illogical reason) I wasn't armed that day I was accosted and so maybe you all should choose to not be armed as well, and so on, and so on?

It is one thing to choose to not be armed and be willing to accept the responsibility for that choice. It is entirely another thing to make that choice, and then impose that choice and its reasons on everyone else.

And if that is what you are doing, then you need to seriously ask yourself what YOU might be projecting, as the article addressed.

Paul

 

[Flying Crane]

Good discussion everyone!


Flying Crane, you said that you found the article misleading and insulting because of the author's practice of characterizing gun-control advocates as people who have some sort of psychological disorder, or at least some serious issues with fear. However, in the portions I quoted from some of your posts, You make the same characterizations about those who choose to go armed every day.

A fair observation.

Why would I choose to leave my most effective self-defense tool at home? I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. My weapon is not a security-blanket or a teddy-bear. I don't carry it because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. In fact, I'll admit that it's a real pain in the *** sometimes to have 2 of 3 pounds or extra weight on my belt. However, I choose to carry it because I never want to find myself in a situation where I am not as prepared as I can possibly be to deal with a threat to my safety or that of someone who I feel a duty to protect.

Just offering a different perspective, and suggesting an experiment to see if it makes any difference in how you see things. Take it or leave it, it's your choice, of course.

 

[Flying Crane]

I appreciate the dialog and feed back and contributions from everyone.

Since I personally don't understand the need to carry all the time, I guess my motivation here is really to try and understand what makes people feel this way. It seems the most prevalent answer is simply to be as prepared as possible, in the event it is ever needed. OK, I can accept that. I still don't agree that it is necessary, but at least I can understand where people are coming from. And of course that is just how I personally feel. I never suggested that I wanted to take the right to carry away from others, so long as they follow safe practices, have quality training, and proper permits to do so.

 

[Flying Crane]

That is really what it boils down too. There is nothing wrong with choosing to not carry a firearm, just as long as you own up to your personal choice and are willing to accept the consequences of that action. Same if you choose to carry.

Full agreement.

The part that is a bit dysfunctional is when people want to project their own personal choice on someone else. Yes, there are some people of a very small minority of pro-gun advocates who don't seem to respect a personal choice to not carry. But, let's not try to paint everything with a broad brush for the sake of political correctness here. There are many people in comparison who choose not to carry who don't respect a persons choice to carry, and in fact want to take that right away or put limits on that right according to their worldview. One has to ask why that is.

Yeah, gottta agree here too.

On a different but related note, one has to also ask why people choose to misinterpret the authors message or argument? Can someone point to where the author is saying that all people who choose not to carry should choose differently even if they do so irresponsibly, or that all people who choose not to carry have a psychological ailment? He is giving psychoanalytical reasoning for a segment of the populace who advocate victim disarmament; a fairly good assessment, but not one that is meant to fit every individual. So, why would some of you who choose not to carry interpret this as an attack on others like you?

Actually, if you go back and reread the descriptions of the Defense Mechanisms, there is a tendency by the author to describe the mechanism and then state "Anti-gun people do this". It comes across sounding like this is a diagnosis being applied to all, or at least most, anti-gun people, and I dont think that is accurate or a fair assessment. And given the medical credentials of the author as a psychiatrist, I think it implies a certain authority to make these judgements, but I think it is a gross exaggeration. It gives me the impression that the author is using his credentials to push a political agenda by making dubious claims. In my opinion, that is irresponsible.

Also, one has to ask, why someone who chooses to carry, who is choosing to take responsibility for his/her own self-defense, would be painted by those who don't carry as "paranoid" and "fearful." Why can't the answer simply be, "I choose not to carry because I don't want the hassle, and I am willing to accept those consequences?" Why does it have to be an entire rigimarol about how there isn't that much crime out really, or how those who are usually armed are not intelligent, or how just because a shooting may be justified that doesn't mean it is right, or how it's a good thing (for some illogical reason) I wasn't armed that day I was accosted and so maybe you all should choose to not be armed as well, and so on, and so on?

Well, I think it is easy to infer that someone who wishes to be armed all the time is afraid of something, or worse, paranoid. Carrying a weapon for self defense implies that one is concerned that they might be attacked at any given moment, in any location. This can easily be interpreted by others as a fear of the world around him. That was my motive in getting involved in this thread - to see if I could get some clean answers and understand this issue better. I think I have, and I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this in a courteous manner.

It is one thing to choose to not be armed and be willing to accept the responsibility for that choice. It is entirely another thing to make that choice, and then impose that choice and its reasons on everyone else.

For me, I never suggested that I wanted to impose my own personal decision on others. I still disagree with the desire to carry all the time, I just don't see it as necessary. But I don't wish to take that right away from others, and I respect the choice to carry so long as it is done responsibly, safely, and legally.

And if that is what you are doing, then you need to seriously ask yourself what YOU might be projecting, as the article addressed.

I really don't think anyone is projecting anything, on either side of the argument.

 

[Cruentus]

Actually, if you go back and reread the descriptions of the Defense Mechanisms, there is a tendency by the author to describe the mechanism and then state "Anti-gun people do this". It comes across sounding like this is a diagnosis being applied to all, or at least most, anti-gun people, and I dont think that is accurate or a fair assessment. And given the medical credentials of the author as a psychiatrist, I think it implies a certain authority to make these judgements, but I think it is a gross exaggeration. It gives me the impression that the author is using his credentials to push a political agenda by making dubious claims. In my opinion, that is irresponsible.

I do see your point. I don't think his claims are dubious, but I do think that he may be over-generalizing, as I have stated before. I think that his assessment may fit for some people, but certainly not all or most people.

Well, I think it is easy to infer that someone who wishes to be armed all the time is afraid of something, or worse, paranoid. Carrying a weapon for self defense implies that one is concerned that they might be attacked at any given moment, in any location. This can easily be interpreted by others as a fear of the world around him. That was my motive in getting involved in this thread - to see if I could get some clean answers and understand this issue better. I think I have, and I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss this in a courteous manner.

This is where our opinions differ.

Objectively speaking, an attack may happen to anyone at any moment, even if it isn't likely. This is a fact, not really a subjective opinion. Some people deal with this fact by increasing their preparedness. This could mean arming oneself with something, taking self-defense courses, and so forth. That is one way of handling it. Some may choose to be armed all of the time because to them it represents freedom and personal responsibility for their own defense and for that of their environment. Others may choose to arm out of paranoia or antisocial behavior; but I don't think it is fair to assume that this is the majority of CCW/CPL holders.

And others may choose not to be armed out of denial, or a victim's mentality, or a lack of personal responsibility. Others may choose not to be armed due to a spiritual ideal and resolve, or simply because it is a hassle and not practical for them.

In all cases, as long as one is willing to be responsible for their choice and not impose it on others, then I cannot say, at least on the surface, that one is flawed for making that personal choice.

So, in the same sense that it wouldn't be fair to judge everyone who chooses to not carry a weapon as being irresponsible or in denial, it wouldn't be fair to judge those who are armed at all times as fearful or paranoid.

Case in point, we can look at Sikhism.

Sikhs, as part of their spiritual beliefs, are armed all the time. Usually it is with an ornate and traditional knife; some are armed with the traditional knife and firearms as well. They are armed at all times, according to their religion.

In Canada, there was some controversy because a high school student wanted to carry his traditional knife in school when he became of age in tradition to do so, but the rules wouldn't allow it. In an interview, his response was interesting. He said [paraphrase], "Our people aren't violent, and the tradition is not a violent one. We carry our traditional armament because in our culture it represents freedom."

You see, in Sikhism, the philosophical belief is that every male (and some females take this option as well) has the responsibility of defending themselves, their families, and their communities. It isn't about paranoia of fear for them; the traditional armament (of which they are bound to use if defense is needed) represents the freedom of defense and the responsibility to do so for them.

Interesting to note that regardless of this ideal, Sikhism is a very peaceful religion. This is especially in comparison to Muslim, Hindu, and Christian histories and beliefs.

I don't think that we can typecast all Sikhs as being fearful or paranoid for their beliefs. Nor, do I think we can typecast the armed citizen in that way either.

For me, I never suggested that I wanted to impose my own personal decision on others. I still disagree with the desire to carry all the time, I just don't see it as necessary. But I don't wish to take that right away from others, and I respect the choice to carry so long as it is done responsibly, safely, and legally.

And for that, I respect your opinion, even where we differ.

Paul