How fetishization of the gun shuts down rational debate about gun control

[SecularMotion]

When U.S. President Barack Obama recently wept while talking about the senseless deaths of young children as a result of gun violence, some commentators accused him of faking his tears by using onions or muscle creams. What is it about a certain sector of gun culture, both in the U.S. and Canada, that seems to invite only hysteria and hyperbole.

Somerset is a former reservist and an avid hunter and gun enthusiast who has published a book called Arms: the Culture and Credo of the Gun. Yet he says he can't understand what he sees as a wilful irrationality in gun culture.

"I like guns. That's a difficult admission, as if confessing to some kind of perversion, though it ought not to be," he writes in his book "People like all kinds of things: cars, sailboats, acoustic guitars. Nobody has to justify liking these things, as I am continually asked to justify liking guns.

"My reason is simple: shooting is fun. But people are likely to think you're weird for liking guns, which is why it's a difficult admission. In their eyes, you become one of those gun nuts. And although I like guns, I do not like gun nuts."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gun-control-ideas-1.3396357

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. You spend how many hours a day every day fixating on gun control only to accuse others of a fetish?

[DonP]

5. Now there's a cogent and accurate observation

The OP spends day and night, week after week, combing the web for any articles on guns, then accuses us of being fixated?

What's wrong with this picture?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Like Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker railing about sexual immorality while deep in sin.

Meanwhile, all gun control is predicated on imposing overwhelming firepower upon The Hated Other. Not actual violent criminals, just The Hated Other. And if armed teams have to kick in doors and gun people down in order to "save lives" then that is what is good and right.

Accuse others of sin loudly enough and they'll probably be too scared to look for that sin in yourself.

[DonP]

9. Yeah, but Swaggert and Bakker both had better comedic timing ...

... and to give them their due, both weeping, sinful "Televangeslistas" at least did "something" in the real world.

The something was prosecution worthy in some states, but it was something.

Far more than you can say about any of our resident "Keyboard Kommando" gun control fans.

[Duckhunter935]

11. so very true

Seems like someone has a fixation.

[Brickbat]

2. Is fetishization like when you can't talk about something without making it sexual?

Especially if you profess to *not* like it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. "What is it about a certain sector of gun culture...

...both in the U.S. and Canada, that seems to invite only hysteria and hyperbole."

Here's a head scratcher: What is it about a "journalist" who ends a question with a period?

[ileus]

4. And Barack wept...

[sarisataka]

6. So true

If only the gun humping ammosexuals would srop stroking theis penis extensions and accept laws controlling death spewing murder machines without questioning the details...


Maybe that headline needs to be changed

[beevul]

7. Your side has never wanted a rational debate to begin with.

What your side wants is a one sided monologue where terms conditions and terminology are dictated only by you and people who agree with you. In other words, a return to the 90s.


And You can just forget it.

[Press Virginia]

15. But if we pass just one more gun law

all our problems will be solved.

[krispos42]

10. Step one: Call anybody that questions your proposals about guns a "gun fetishist"

Step two: explain how their emotional, irrational fetish precludes rational debate.

Step three: act without input the from the other side because, after all, all opposition derives from fetishism and is therefore disregarded.

Step four: be surprised when the opposition mobilizes

Step five: be eternally confused why a) Republicans still control things, b) crime doesn't plummet when something you advocate for gets passed, and c) crime doesn't skyrocket when something you oppose passes.

Step six: reiterate step one, but louder and more insistent.



A perfect example: nobody, including you, seems inclined to debate or even discuss the facts and conclusions in my "smart guns" OP of a few days ago. Yet there were numerous posts and OPs about this issue that were diametrically opposite of what I said, things such that there is a strong market demand for smart guns that is being repressed by the NRA. Nobody seems fit to either a) challenge me, or b) admit that I'm right and they're wrong.


Have fun in the bubble.

[Duckhunter935]

12. well said

Thank you

[beevul]

13. You left some out.

Step one: Call anybody that questions your proposals about guns a "gun fetishist"

Step two: explain how their emotional, irrational fetish precludes rational debate.

Step three: act without input the from the other side because, after all, all opposition derives from fetishism and is therefore disregarded.

Step four: be surprised when the opposition mobilizes

Step five: Do everything possible to push gun rights supporters to the other party.

Step six: After achieving some success in step 5, complain loudly and regularly that the nra is just gop...

Step seven: reiterate step one, but louder and more insistent.

But yeah:

Have fun in the bubble.

[Duckhunter935]

16. step 8

Start with the sexual references and insults

Step 9 run away

[flamin lib]

14. Thanks for proving SecMo's point . . .

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. SecMo's posts are quite persuasive to those who already agree with them. Others, not so much...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect

In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate the extent to which their opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are normal and typical of those of others (i.e., that others also think the same way that they do).[1] This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a "false consensus".

This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem. It is derived from a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment. This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way. The false-consensus effect is not restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority, but it still manifests as an overestimate of the extent of their belief. For example, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way.[2] There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias, and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors. Maintenance of this cognitive bias may be related to the tendency to make decisions with relatively little information. When faced with uncertainty and a limited sample from which to make decisions, people often "project" themselves onto the situation. When this personal knowledge is used as input to make generalizations, it often results in the false sense of being part of the majority.