PART
II
Denial
Another defence 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 jewellery 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
neighbourhood" 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 defence 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 harbours 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 behaviour" 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 behaviour. 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- defence 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 defence
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.
Defence 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
defence mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general
rule is that a defence 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 defence
mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of
external reality will be seriously distorted."17
Defence mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun
person may use several defence mechanisms simultaneously. For example,
my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which
all his neighbours want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more
angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defence 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 defence 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.
Defence mechanisms distort reality
Because defence 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 neighbours 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 neighbour. 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 neighbour - except in
self-defence. 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 harbour 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 defence 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" harbour 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 defence 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-defence.
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-defence 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 defenceless.
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
defenceless – 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 defence mechanisms to displace it into
irrational beliefs about neighbours 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 defence 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
defences. 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 defence mechanism by force. Remember
that defence mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle,
and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious
psychological harm. And because defence 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 defence 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 neighbours 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 defences.
You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very
strong defences, he can continue to insist that his neighbours want to
murder him. However, if his defences 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 defences.
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 defences, 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 neighbours
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-defence 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 neighbours. 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-defence 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
defences, 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 defence 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 behaviour, 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 favourably.
For
example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you
interact regularly and have a generally good relationship – a co-worker,
neighbour, 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" behaviour. 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 calibre 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 defences, 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-defence. 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
defences, 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- defence, 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- defence is an
essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun.
|