Projection: A Lesson in Gun Control Advocate Mentality


 “If I only had a gun...” It's a phrase, common amongst Gun Rights advocates and Gun Control advocates alike, typically preceding a confessed desire to use the weapon. In the case of the former, with Gun Rights advocates, it is verbal proclamation of the will to use that weapon in order to change a particular outcome. In the case of the latter there appears to be little overall difference. The focus, or application, of a firearm is to change the direction of a dispute through lethal force. The point at which the two listed groups diverge is where they begin to list their intentions.

In the case of Gun Rights advocates I have heard “If I only had a gun” paraphrased or altered to represent what they could have – might have – done if faced with a situation similar to the Fort Hood shooting where as many as 30 were wounded while 13 others lost their lives. It's been stated and reiterated time and again by the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus after the incident at Virginia Tech in 2007 which left 32 people dead. Both massacres took place in Gun Free Zones, therefore “If I only had a gun” becomes a far stretch for anyone who abides by the laws put in place to prohibit such ifs.

While I've heard the Gun Rights advocate state their intentions, building the case for why they need fewer restrictions on where they can't defend themselves with a firearm, I've heard no solid responses as to why those who have voiced their concerns, frustrations, and willingness to do good have been ignored by Gun Control advocates. In fact many of the responses I've read – many of them here on Opposing Views – support a theory that Gun Control advocates do not use the same logic or the same reason as the rest of us. Instead these Gun Control groups such as the Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns seem to offer nothing other than hysterical claims and "data" built from purely emotional responses rather than any sort of statistical analysis.

While it is true that Gun Rights advocates have been known to approach the debate with their own passion and emotions invested, it is the Gun Control advocates who alarm me most by their justification for the restrictions – such as the Zones mentioned earlier – which include reasons that sound neither reasonable nor rational.

C.J. Keyser once wrote: “Absolute certainty is the privilege of uneducated men and fanatics.”

This is the single best quote I can muster up to provide an explanation as to why Gun Control advocates are so certain of their decisions, so adamantly against the professed will of others to own, possess, and use firearms responsibly – resulting in more than 2 million self-defense situations annually. The reasons for completely dismissing others and denying their rights is an extension of self-centered ignorance: “If I only had a gun...”

Though I will not say it is true of all Gun Control advocates, chances are you've met someone who does not own a firearm because they “know themselves” or because they “don't know what they would do with one.” While at first glance this appears to be an admirable response, it also brings something negative to mind. Gun Control advocates do not trust themselves and they quite unhealthily project that emotional response on to others. “Knowing themselves” becomes knowing what they would do “if only they had a gun.”

Gun Control advocates, now referred to as GCA, and Gun Rights advocates, now referred to as GRA, own this one difference between them. Anyone who has ever used a firearm, anyone who has ever needed to use a firearm, anyone who responsibly carries one on a daily basis [whether it be a citizen, a police officer, or anyone who is active military], knows to never assume anything of an armed individual whether for better or for worse. While the GCA only sees the negativity, projected by what they would do with a firearm, the GRA minds their own activity and vigilantly watches for the negative actions of others while not dismissing the positive actions of others. The GCA can not realize this because they do not choose to look beyond themselves or their own ability or lack thereof to make sound judgment, therefore ignoring the many lawful and justified uses of firearms which take place in this country every year.

Due to the media's exaggeration we are bombarded with messages that are soaked up by the GCA and yet do not tell the other side of the story. A few terrible examples of gun uses are brought on board to paint a picture of desolation, despair, and unnecessary violence caused solely by the existence of firearms. We're told how tragic the Fort Hood or Virginia Tech shootings are without being told how those facilities became such easy targets with their Zoning. It is rare that the GRA are given fair representation in the media; acknowledging these instances of lawful self-defense does much to disprove and silence the opponents of Gun Rights.

Nebraska: Customer shoots would-be robber--detains second subject
Virginia: Botetourt County man kills intruder
Fatal shooting of robbery suspect was self-defense
Legal concealed weapon ruins robbery try
Good Samaritan Stops Bank Robbery Suspect
Homeowner Shoots At Teen Burglar Caught In Act
Police: Man Shot Dead In Car Justifiable
Forest Grove man scares off attacker with warning shot
Man killed during Northeast Side break-in attempt
Concealed Weapon Saves Man from Becoming Stabbing Victim

Remember that a firearm has no brain of its own, no desire or intent apart from the wielder's, unable to make critical decisions without a trigger-finger to direct its function. If you are an advocate of Gun Control I encourage you to look at the reasons why you've taken your stance. If it is because of your own aggression and a fear of what you would do with that aggression while having access to deadly force then I agree, you should not be armed because you are a danger to society – with or without arms. Just know and understand it – understand it well – that you are not entitled to say anyone else is incapable of conducting themselves responsibly just because you or another person is not.

As a courtesy to all of those opposed to gun rights I'll close by saying this, not as a matter of opinion, simply as a guarantee by the U.S. Constitution:

I shall not force a gun into your hand; you shall not take one from my own.


Popular Video