A Geek With Guns

This is another one of my essay style posts which means it’s going to be long winded and full of nothing other than my opinion which I like to think is developed based on research. If you’re looking for news alone feel free to ignore this post.

What I want to write about today is the differences in ideologies between anti-gunners and gun rights advocates. The first thing I want to do is define some categories.

For the purpose of this essay I’ll be lumping people into three groups. The first a pro gun people, the second are anti gun people, and the third are those in between which I’ll call the fence sitters. For each of these categories there are going to be three levels being high, medium, and low. These levels denote the strength of a person’s position.

For instance a high pro gun person is one whom wants all gun laws repealed. A low pro gun person is one who is more or less a fence sitter but believes in the right to bear arms enough to fight a little for it. High anti gun people are those who want to abolish all firearms and make them illegal where as a low anti gunner wants very strong gun control laws but doesn’t necessarily want them all banned. The level of a fence sitter denotes which way they lean more to. A high fence sitter will be one who leans more to the pro gun side (I use these people as high because I feel they are more correct) meanwhile a low fence sitter is one leaning more towards the anti gun side. These would be people like hunters whom claim to be pro gun but actually only care if their hunting rifles are legal.

Of these categories there are general ideological differences not just on the issue of gun rights but also on other issues. Do note these are stereotypes, which are usually based on some facts. Stereotypes become such for a reason, which is to say most stereotypes have some basis in truth. OK now we’ll start with the pro gun side.

In most cases the pro gun people lean politically right. This can be due to many different reasons. This is not to say they are Republicans, in fact the higher severity level pro gun people generally lean towards either the Libertarian or Constitution parties. They generally are against laws like socialized health care, environment protection laws, and smoking bans.

The anti gun people love to point at such things and say pro gun people are against the greater welfare of society. But we’ll get into their beliefs in a bit. The fact of the matter is the pro gun people aren’t against the “greater good” but are independent. Most people who lean strongly to the right of the political spectrum are educated and capable of surviving should major infrastructre fail. Third these people are generally less trustful of unknown people and certainly do not trust government.

Independence is what this country was founded on. We fought a war to break away from the British government and establish our own. When we did we created a system of government that, at the time, valued individual liberty over the “greater good.” That is why the right leaning side of the political spectrum is known as the conservative side. Their independence is one of their biggest motivational factors for being pro gun. In the opinion of this side owning firearms gives you several advantages such as self defense, the ability to obtain food, and entertainment.

When somebody breaks into your home calling the police will get them to arrive in a matter of minutes usually. But this has two problems. The first is the police will be there in minutes which is longer then it takes to kill a person. The second problem is your a dependent on an outside source for your protection. Being independent pro gun people generally want a means of defending their selves and families without needing somebody else to arrive.

Firearms also give a great means of gathering food. Try hunting a deer without a firearm or at least a bow and arrow. It’s barely in the realm of possibility. Even though in modern society you can easily go to a grocery store and get food there is one potential problem. The first being if the grocery store and it’s required infrastructure fail you can not get food. This can easily occur if there is a natural disaster for instance. Being able to hunt gives you another means of obtaining food without being dependent on other people. When all Hell breaks loose the people on the pro gun side usually have a means and plan for survival. When a pro gun person states either of the above two reasons for owning firearms they are often called paranoid. The irony here is, besides the social label, there is no downside to being paranoid in these cases. A person who can hunt and defend themselves may never need to but there is no detriment from knowing how to do either.

Finally firearms provide entertainment. Believe it or not it’s a lot of fun to go shooting. There is something about the combination of noise, steel, and power that is very gratifying.

The other side of the spectrum are the anti gun people. These guns range from being OK with gun control to wanting nothing less than a total ban on civilian firearm ownership. These people use justifications for their beliefs that follow the line of wanting safer streets and less deaths. In the end these people are OK with being dependent on an outside source for their survival.

People who are anti gun generally lean towards the left side of the political spectrum. They feel government is there to support the civilian populace and that basic needs of survival should be provided. They are fine with making something illegal so long as it’s for the “greater good.” For instance since smoking of known to be unhealthy they feel it’s justifiable to ban it. Likewise since firearms are a perceived danger to them they feel they should be made illegal.

These people are usually far more trusting of strangers and their government. They feel people are inherently good and the government is will do anything to protect them. It rarely occurs to them that there are bad people out there and the government doesn’t give a damn about them. They also often have the mentality that bad things won’t happen them them.

If asked what to do when a person breaks into their home they will usually reply that you should call the police. It is their belief that the police are the only people trained properly to handle such a situation and that anything a “regular person” would do would only put that person in further jeopardy. They also feel that the best way to survive a criminal encounter is to do as the criminal tells them. This is the exact opposite belief high pro gun people have as they believe a contract with a criminal has not guarantee of being followed.

They also believe strongly in the power of government. If something is made illegal high anti gun people will think there will be far less of that thing. For instance they say by making guns illegal for civilian use there will be less guns on the street and therefore less criminals will have them. Of course there is an irony in a group of people who are more trusting of fellow human being but also believe that anybody who doesn’t follow their views is a criminal.

Again this trust in government also encourages them to believe that the unlawful will not perform unlawful acts if they need to break another law to accomplish it. For instance it is a common belief of high anti gunners that a person who is planning to commit murder will not do so if their weapon of choice is illegal. The idea is since something is illegal the potential murder won’t try to obtain it. This shows another anti gun person trait, the lack of trying to see the full picture.

As previously stated these people generally lean towards the political left. They do want socialized health care. Of course the idea of it costing an exorbitant amount is never considered because it has nothing to do with their immediate goal which is the “greater good.” Likewise they don’t realize if somebody is willing to break one law they are probably going to be fine with breaking another law. If somebody wants to commit murder, which is illegal, they are going to be just fine with breaking a law dealing with the prohibition of guns. After all murder should be a more severe crime than obtaining a prohibited substance so what’s the harm.

Another example of being unable to see the big picture is the lack of ability to survive without the established infrastructure. When asked where they would get their food if the grocery store no longer had any available they simply claim that situation is impossible. They do not stop to think that a natural disaster could destroy all sources of commercial food. When pressed on the matter they will say the government will provide food in those cases. Without the dependent infrastructure the anti gun crowd will instantly look to another infrastructure to depend on. If required to survive without any infrastructure these people would most likely perish.

Then you have the people in between. These people usually are semi-dependent on others but could be independent if absolutely needed. Their main feature is the lack of any strong conviction. Fence sitters usually lack any strong belief and are OK with anything so long as they aren’t affected.

The early mentioned characteristic of a hunter who is OK with gun control so long as it doesn’t affect their property is good to bring up again. Such as person is capable of survival and does wish to be left alone more or less but doesn’t care what happens to other people. They don’t care about the “greater good” nor the independence of others. They only care about themselves and usually their family. Almost all of their decisions are based only on the possible pros and cons for themselves. For instance they would be happy with socialized health care so long as they didn’t have to worry about paying for it. If the health care will be paid for by rich people and the fence sitter isn’t rich they are happy since they get all the benefits and have no detriment.

Whereas the pro gun people are working for independent freedom for everybody and the anti gun people are working for the “greater good” of everybody the fence sitter is concerned only about the fence sitter. They can be easily manipulated by either side simply through explanation of why a particular thing will benefit them. And this is where most people lay in the political spectrum. They have no idea what is going on in their government unless it directly affects them. For instance they will howl about a tax increase for their tax bracket but won’t give two flying fucks about a ban on smoking if they don’t smoke.

Even if something does directly affect them they will usually not fight for or against it. They make excuses that amount to saying nothing they do will matter. When it comes time to vote they don’t because they say their vote doesn’t matter. They refuse to contact their representatives because they don’t believe their voice will be heard. When you get down to it they are lazy and doing any of these things would take up time that they would rather use to make their life more entertaining and comfortable.

Yes this essay is blunt and rather harsh. It certainly isn’t bias since I am not an unbias man and this is my own site so I can do whatever the fuck I want. Anyways if you read all of this thank you, if you didn’t I completely understand since I hate reading long posts as well. But for those of you who read this whether you agree or not I hope it at least provoked thought.