“You don’t need to have a weapon; the police will protect you.”
“If everyone carried firearms, there would be murders over parking spaces and basketball games.”
“I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware that everyone shouldn’t own firearms.”
“I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to help and rescue me.”
How often have you heard these statements from misguided fighters of reducing the number of weapons, or even uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, when information proves with no doubt that they are wrong? Why do they get desperately angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are truly and intelligently and sensibly wrong? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with clear thinking? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their mental processes. Once you understand why these people behave in a weird way because of wrong thinking, you can communicate more effectively with them.
Years ago I got an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The sender, who chose to remain unnamed, insisted that people have no right to carry weapons, why? Because he didn’t want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a “bad day”. I don’t know if this person is a “man”, but I’m assuming so.. I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, of course, I got no response. The truth is that the sender is more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn’t legally carry a firearm, likely to be shot by a police officer. How does my correspondent “know” that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn’t know that. 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 music too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projecting unconsciously. Projecting one’s own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn’t have to own them. Sometimes, the terrible feelings are projected not onto someone, but onto an non-living object, such as a weapon, ie. The projector believes the gun itself will murder him.
Projection is a subconscious mental process , serving or acting to prevent harm. It is an unconscious mental way that protect us from feelings that we cannot accept. It operates without knowing about something, so that we don’t have to deal consciously with “forbidden” feelings and unplanned desires. So, if you try to ask my e-mail sender if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would surely deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.
Projection is an especially sneaky and harmful mental protective process, which not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, but also creates a world where he perceives all people as directing his own hateful feelings back at him.
All people have violent, even dangerously violent sudden desires. Let me give you an 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 responding to their anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness, as well as weakness that could be used to hurt someone. Most people can admit to the feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy and many more, without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.
Other people are unable consciously to admit that they have such “unacceptable” feelings of love, hate, or fear. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. maybe they fear that if they admit the hateful feelings, they will lose control and will surely hurt someone. They may believe that “good people” never have such feelings, but the truth is all people have them.
This is especially true, now that education “experts” commonly prohibit children from expressing negative feelings of love, hate, fear, angry, and violent behavior. Instead of learning that such feelings of love, hate, fear, etc. are usual, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled. Children learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to extreme punishment. In order to protect themselves from “being bad”, so they are forced to use subconscious mental protective processes to avoid owning their own regular feelings of love, hate, fear and more. Sadly, using such the subconscious mental protective processes, inappropriately can endanger their mental health. Every child needs to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.
This discussion of mental ways applies to the average person who doesn’t have enough knowledge, or is misinformed, about weapons and self-defense. It does not apply to the person with strong opinions. The best example is Charles Schumer, who know the facts about firearms, and resorts to fighting for something, consciously and intentionally and stubbornly in order to have political power.
Another subconscious mental protective process that is commonly used by supporters of gun control is denial. When we say denial, it is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation. For example, think about a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. The woman may get very angry at a kind friend who hints that her husband is having an affair. It’s very obvious that the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband 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 community of people where criminals can attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or even knows someone who has been, in a serious situation. The police can’t protect everyone everywhere, 24 hours a day. The intelligent research said that the police have no legal duty to protect you. Firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family. The anti-gun folks insist the opposite of everything.
Anti-gun people, who refuse to accept the reality of non-military related, self defense and advocate reducing the number of weapons, are using denial to protect themselves from the fear and stress of feeling helpless, as well as capable of being hurt. In addition, gun owners who insist that “the government will never take my guns” are also using denial to protect themselves from the fear and stress of thinking about forcibly having weapons taken away.
The Formation of Reaction.
When we say reaction, it is one more common thing among the anti-gun folks. It happens when a person’s mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite. For example, a child who is jealous of a his/her brother/sister may show too much love and loyalty for the hated brother or sister.
Also, a person who holds onto murderous extreme anger toward his fellow humans may claim to be a loyal and caring peace-lover, refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach. Often that kind of person hides behind fields of study and believes that they are “superior” to “less peaceful, law-obeying and productive” folks who start “violent behavior” such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may affiliate themselves to “animal welfare” organizations that announce that the rights of animals be treated as more important than the rights of everyone. This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his extreme anger, it allows him actually to harm the other people he hates without having to know he hates them.
This is not meant to criticize others who are peace-lovers, inclined to be vegetarian, and those support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, instead, its the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Honestly, skilled people try to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion.work to convince others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to by right behavior. In general, honest peace-lovers show good will towards others, even towards people with whom they might disagree on different issues.
In Contrast to the honest peace-lover or animal lover, is the harsh, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is done to “save the animals” or the person who wants to make illegal self-defense and believes innocent people have to be raped and murdered for the good of everyone. Betty Friedan said ” deadly violence even in self defense only creates more violence.” The truly peace-lover person stops from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive feelings of love, hate, fear, etc. On the other hand, the angry person finds “socially acceptable” ways to harm, or even kill others.
Regarding the anti-gun people, reaction keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of awareness, while allowing them to feel superior to “violent gun owners”. 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 a very attractive from a mental point of view, it’s hard to undo.
The Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses.
Defense mechanisms are normal. Everyone uses them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn’t mean they are “mentally ill”.
Some defense mechanisms 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 or your relationships with others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. However, “if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the person’s perception of external reality will be surely distorted.”
Defense mechanisms, also frequently combine, so that an anti–gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate sender 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 he 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 danger to rationalize why he needs 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, while his own is so horribly out of control.
It is also important to remember that not all anti–gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Other people suffer from gun phobia,s an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti–gun conditioning they’ve been subjected to by the media, politicians, and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a weapon, but with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who created 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 and unreasonable, something most anti–gun people will never admit.
The Defense mechanisms distort reality.
Defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions; everyone who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e–mail sender, as well as other anti–gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co-employees will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms.
For those who legally carry concealed firearms, they are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population. A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training and of course spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a weapon, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison and possibly capital punishment, including the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously, it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor, except for self-defense. As you can see the anti–gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with the reality.
Common Thread: Rage
In my experience, what anti–gun people have in common is rage. Either anti–gun people harbor more rage than others, or they’re less able to cope with it appropriately. They can’t handle their own feelings of rage, so they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. They wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, thus they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm others. Why do anti–gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? The largest and most hysterical anti–gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African–Americans and Jews. Virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these are stridently anti–gun. Among Jews, Blacks and women there are many “professional victims,” who have little sense of identity apart from their victimhood.
The Identity as Victim.
To summarize this article in three sentencese:
People who identify themselves as “victims” harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, 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, suffering guilt, and of course, 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 the “eternal victim” mentality.
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?” On the other hand, Why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability not regard herself as a victim?
The basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims and not because they have actually been victimized, but because they’re members of groups that claim victim status, while the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure.
Many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self–defense. “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged,” and the old saying is surely correct.
The Special Treatment and The Misleading Leaders.
There are two reasons for these groups to insist“victim” status seems likely. First, by means of claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs.
Second, people who 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, and attribute every one of life’s misfortunes to “racism” or “sexism” or even “hate crimes,”and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors. These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.
Likewise, the NAACP, who is suing weapons manufacturers to put them out of business, is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang–ridden cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self–defense in any of its crime infested housing projects. Jewish leaders or those in the politically correct “Reform” branch, preach that gun control is “a solemn religious obligation,” different from the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history. The law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don’t resist rapists and robbers, yet at the same time women’s organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless.
Victimhood is good business for all organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend on the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self–preservation, organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry, and at the same time keep their members defenseless, and therefore dependent.
The anti–gun groups love victims!
Based on my personal observations, pro–victimhood is a feature of all of the special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. All organizations that support gun control apparently want their members to be helpless, terrified and of course 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 even charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti–Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live with fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are “victims” just as much as inner city minorities.
If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would surely encourage everyone into 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 beararms, the right to defend yourself, and of course how these rights preserve the right to be free.
Psychological price of being a victim.
In current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, however, 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. Victims think 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 leada to serious depression.
But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. Let me give you an example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings, even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as “victim.” For those who think that the entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life.
People who view themselves as victims:
They use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing one another, and the infallibility of police protection.
They attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly think of as the bad guy.
Say no to being a victim!
No one needs to be a victim! Very simple, it’s hard to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried weapons, then rapes and beating would decrease. Bad guys who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized that they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a weapon. It would be nearly impossible to enslave, or herd people into concentration camps, especially large numbers of armed people.
Communicating together with anti-gun people.
How can you communicate more effectively with an anti–gun person? Those who are using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are easy answers, but there are a few things you should always keep in mind.
Both anger and attacks do not work.
Most people who own firearms, when confronted by an anti–gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination, 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 surely intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help that person to feel safe, then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make the right decision.
Nobody should ever try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Always remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, so if you take that protection away, you can surely cause serious psychological harm. Defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, so it won’t do any good to show an anti–gun person this article or to point out that he’s using defense mechanisms. Our goal is to gently and gradually help someone to have a more realistic and rational view about the world. We can’t do this in one hour or one day.
When you try reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes and the the emotional reactions that anti–gun people have toward firearms. When it comes to dealing with illogical thought processes, you are trying to use reason and logic to convince the anti–gun person that his perception of other people and weapons are seriously not right. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and guns are not threats, it may even save his life.
Reversing Irrational thoughts
One approach that can be helpful is feedback about what the anti–gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. When replying to my anonymous e–mail sender, 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, then you are not directly challenging his defenses. It’s like 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. But, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start questioning his position.
Another example, “Why do you think that your children’s school teachers would shoot them?” You can follow up this question with, “Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?” You are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person and his defenses.
The anti–gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from possessing weapons would prevent it. You might want to ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with bats, or even poisoning the milk and cookies.
It’s very important to ask questions that require a response other than yes or no. Those questions make the anti–gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to think again about his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about the use of firearms, as well as ownership.
“What Would You Do?” Technique.
Once you have started a conversation 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 more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but most would, especially if they possess firearm. You can also ask him who are these most people, why they would shoot a co–worker, and of course what the shooter would gain by doing it?
Don’t try to win the argument, don’t try to embarrass the person you’re trying to educate. Always remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear “I told you so!” You need to 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!
“You Are There” Technique.
Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, since many peoples preferences are feelings, rather than thinking. You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti–gun person, and don’t forget that most people have been conditioned to associate weapons with dead toddlers. That’s why you need to change the person’s emotional responses along with his thoughts.
One of the best way to do this is to put the anti–gun person at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. Let me give you an 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?”
Let that person 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.
Power of Empathy.
Another emotion t based approach is often more successful, to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti–gun person.
For a moment, try to imagine 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 good, right?
This is our world, opponents of armed self–defense live. Everyone have had times in our lives when we felt “different,” had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co–workers and a lot more. That’s why 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 one in my, even then I didn’t think anyone was going to kill me.” It’s essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy, and if you’re glib or sarcastic, this won’t work.
Using empathy works in some ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti–gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Rather than an “evil, gun–toting, extremist”, you are now a sympathetic and fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, both of you can 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.
This technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive, it also allows you to escape from the dead end of “guns save lives” versus “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 hard it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns “solely for the goal of murdering children.”
You should not expect any of these approaches to work right away, they won’t. With rare exceptions, the anti–gun person is simply not going to “see the light,”being thankful to you and ask you to take him to the shooting. What you are trying to do is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person’s defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind and a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years, but it surely works.
The Corrective Experiences.
The most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, is by means of providing corrective experiences. When we say corrective experiences, these are the experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are not right in a safe and non–threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to share his incorrect ideas onto you, after that, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing.
One of the best 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.But, 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 already 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 not sub–human monsters, but normal people who care about their families, friends and even strangers.
As many owners of the gun have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve is to actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed gun, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably.
Like, “if you’re dealing with an anti–gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship with a coworker, neighbor, church member and more, 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. Instead 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 must consider carefully other consequences before using this type of approach.”
The First-hand experience.
In the first place, our goal is to take the anti–gun person to the shooting range. 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.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 weapons have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. You might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded gun. This will also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person to tell whether a weapon is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of guns safety.
Try to encourage the person to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and not in a threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But you need to be careful not to provide so much information that it’s overwhelming. And don’t forget that this is not the time to launch into anti–government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any political talk!
Then you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. Make sure to tell him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he’s free just to watch. In advance, let him know 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 or anything else. Make sure you have a appropriate weapon for your guest, she/he can decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber gun that doesn’t have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, you need to make sure the gun will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, don’t forget that the double–stack semi–autos are usually too large for a woman’s hand.
You also need to remember that visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety–conscious, courteous, considerate, and always follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to elderly, both male and female, enjoying together. He will not see even a single “beer–swilling redneck” waving a firearm in people’s faces.
Based on my personal experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Don’t forget to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle any weapon. If you don’t feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, then you ask an instructor or range master to assist. You also need to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement, and if you’re lucky, you’ll recruit a new firearms enthusiast.
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 of course how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. Your guest will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will also know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to use a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows, after a few months or years, he may decide to become an owner of gun.
Reasons why these techniques do not always work.
It is necessary for you to remember that you will not be successful with all anti–gun people. Others are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it’s not possible for someone without professional training to get through, and other people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them, and then some may concede that what you say “makes sense,” but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few people may have had traumatic experiences with weapons 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 possessing weapons, as well as self–defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti–gun politics, andare not interested in the facts or in saving lives. People like them know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Avoid using these techniques with those people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and of course money that they covet.
In conclusion, the means of better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will surely be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti–gun people. This will let you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of weapons, self–defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety.
Sharing knowledge with others about firearms is hard work. It’s not glamorous, and of course it generally needs to be done with one person at a time. This is very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise everything. A person can supports fair trials, whether or not he’s ever been in a courtroom. A person likewise needs to understand that self–defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a firearm.