The Case for More Guns, Learn to Think Like The Sheep Who Chose to Be Unarmed

Courtesy Dean Weingarten

U.S.A.-( People in the gun culture often express amazement about people who want them disarmed. They ascribe the desire to hostility and malice. It may be true for a minority of those who actively wish for a disarmed population.  A significant number, likely a majority, have made a voluntary decision to be unarmed.

It is important to know your opponent and to understand their motives.

Three years ago, this correspondent wrote an essay on how to understand people who want a disarmed population. It was popular but did not appear on AmmoLand News at that time.

I have updated the essay for current conditions.

There Is An Easy Way To Understand People Who Wish You To Be Unarmed.

It takes a little discipline. You may have a little mental discomfort, but it is not particularly difficult.  For the ability to understand the other side, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.

Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.

Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement “guns are bad”.

Guns are Bad
Guns are Bad

Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed.

It is why many who are voluntarily unarmed dislike concealed carry but violently abhor open carry. Open carry presents them with a reality they cannot easily ignore. It destroys their comfortable fantasy.

People more easily accept information that reinforces what they already believe. It is a form of selection bias. If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept the news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to happily accept that as true.

If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.

Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person.  You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.

One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant.

Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions.  Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.

This explains attempts to minimize crime, minimize the dangers of wild animals, minimize government ineffectiveness in emergencies. It explains why so much effort is expended to discredit the number of times firearms are used for self-defense and to prevent crime.  It explains the insistence that government can never become tyrannical.

It is difficult for an unarmed person to disarm an armed one.  Because you fear those who are armed, you need a champion to disarm them. Your champion is the government.  To believe the government is your champion, you assume the government is benevolent; the government is concerned with your safety; the government will be there to protect you in need. This mindset is easier to maintain if you believe the need for a protector is minimal. Many voluntarily unarmed people put significant effort in an attempt to minimize the need for armed protection.

The purpose of learning to think like someone who made the decision to be unarmed is to understand how to persuade those who have adopted the mindset, or who may be deciding to be unarmed or not. It is easier to persuade them if you understand the mindset.

Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed.

Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.

Making the Case

There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.

An important part of persuasion is to present yourself as polite and reasonable. On the Internet, you are speaking to the world. Being polite and reasonable does not mean you have to agree.  It is not hard to show people their misconceptions in kind ways. It helps persuade those who are reading but not participating.

One strong way to change the cost-benefit ratio for deliberately unarmed people is to show armed citizens make them safer. Show how armed or legally armed-people make them more safe rather than less safe.  Show how armed people work to prevent crime, rather than to cause it.

Examples of people who used firearms to prevent crime can be used to good effect. Show them how people who are legally armed are more law-abiding than police. Show legally armed people have stopped mass murder.  Show were armed people have saved police lives.

The voluntarily unarmed do not need to become armed to see advantages in having legally armed people about. Legally armed people become another force to preserve order, in addition to the police.

Another method is to lower the personal fear of firearms. This is very effective. Invite them to go shooting. Make this a pleasant experience.  Have them shoot a .22, using hearing protection or a suppressor. Have the target up close, so it is hard for them to miss. A great many people change their opinion about firearms after a trip to the range.

It is one of the reasons those who wish to disarm us work hard to make it difficult to shoot legally. There are no public ranges in Chicago open to ordinary people.

You can reduce the perception of the cost of an armed population by showing them facts about firearm accidents. Tremendous strides have occurred to reduce fatal firearms accidents. The rate of fatal gun accidents has been reduced by 94%in the last 90 years. Show them fatal gun accidents involving young children are extremely rare, less frequent than fatal accidents involving bicycles or glass tabletops.

Explaining the uncertainty of the future can help them become aware of potential future needs for firearms. They may want to be armed in the future. Use historical examples. You do not have to go far. Consider rooftop Koreans, or shop owners in Ferguson, Missouri.

This shows them the benefit of keeping their options open. Explain how changes in society or their personal situation may make the ownership of a firearm more important or useful. People often become more aware of the need for defense when they become parents or homeowners.

The surge in new gun owners shows how effective this motivation can be.

The desire to be armed is rooted in human nature, #ad in the desire to protect ourselves, those we love, our possessions, and our society.

Many who are voluntarily unarmed took the road of least resistance. If they can be gently persuaded to consider and reflect on their choice, they can change their mind.

The other side of the cost-benefit ratio is worthwhile. People who have chosen to be unarmed should be educated that disarming others is not cost-free.  Increased distrust in society, increased black markets in arms, increased risk of armed resistance, and low-level warfare can increase their personal risk.

Society becomes fragmented and divided. Everyone becomes far less secure. Attempting to disarm society carries serious risks for those pushing the disarmament as well as those society attempts to disarm.  Draconian gun restrictions have not reduced murder rates or the number of illegal guns.

In a society with 470 million privately owned guns, and gun sales at record levels, It will either take societal upheaval or many generations to disarm the American population if it is possible at all. Those who are unarmed will be vulnerable.

Very few choose to obey a law to register guns.  For fear of sparking serious unrest, the 90-98% who do not comply are not subject to house-to-house searches.  The media attempt to convince people that guns are useless when social cohesion breaks down.  Have you seen movies where guns, lying about, are ignored while the hero picks up a club, or runs away? They are common on the net, but not very popular.

You can tell them how strict gun control is seen by a large percentage of the population as violating basic human rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Most people can understand how bad it is for a country to lose trust in the rule of law. Look at Chicago, Venezuela, the U.S. Virgin Islands. In all those areas, the rule of law has broken down.  This is a powerful argument, which is why those desiring an unarmed population spend so much time misrepresenting and attacking the Second Amendment.

Explain the physical limits of gun control. Show how people with minimal technology make guns with ease; explain that gunpowder, priming, and bullets were all made in households and small shops by 1880. People today still use those techniques. They are supplemented by easily obtained and inexpensive machine tools, chemical equipment, and even 3D printing.  The information is available to anyone with a computer.

The gun culture and Second Amendment supporters have physics, chemistry, facts, human nature, and the Constitution on their side.

Those who wish a disarmed population can win if they suppress and control the flow of information. Those who oppose Second Amendment rights necessarily oppose free exercise of the First Amendment.

Compared to nearly the entire rest of the world, people in the United States have retained the ability to choose to be legally armed or unarmed. Most people in the USA want to keep the option. Nearly all the rest of the world does not have it.

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ryben Flynn

“My hobby” does not endanger “your life”. Criminals do.
And it’s not a “hobby”, it is self defense.


The woman in the photo is a good example of the poorly educated


Those choosing to be unarmed, deep-down, don’t trust themselves.


or their fellow demonrats.


Firearms are not a hobby. Ownership and use of Arms is a lifetime e commitment to safety and security!


I like this one. It should be a bumper sticker.

APG member

Assuming responsibility for ones personal security is not a hobby. That woman relies on her husband and the police…


Yes. She is ascribing to the Mercenary policy

Roland T. Gunner

Hey, some of my best friends are mercenaries. Or used to be anyway.

John Dow

Regarding the dingbat in the picture:

Protecting My Life > Your Feelings


Hey, anti-gun advocates…

MY God-given human, civil, legal, Constitutionally-protected RIGHTS outweigh, override, supersede, and ‘Trump’ – thus, are greater than (>) – YOUR irrational, unreasonable, ignorant, hoplophobic FEARS.

Are we crystal clear on this issue? We damned-well better be!


The naive no longer sees self defense a necessity because after all we’re civilized. Unfortunately the criminals haven’t got that memo and those unarmed citizens will eventually get a crash course of victim 101. Learning the hard way, that the government you so trust with your life is the same that wants to disarm you. The very system you’re counting on to be there will eventually show up to record the events of your demise.


My Rights > Your Feelings, bitch.


The thing about being unarmed leaves you at the mercy of who wishes to do harm to you and your family!!!!!! You can’t rely totally on the police as to time and distance to respond to your emergency, cities are different from rural areas, so not owning a gun is a choice on each of us if we want to hope that police can get there in time. I have a friend that t has taken many trips to the range, many times, gave him the lessons on firearm safety on multiple guns, and was one who was a believer… Read more »


It funny I have been physically attacked by an anti gun nut ,actually had to hit him with a glass bottle (i was in Massachusetts,anti gun state of granola) police did not arrest him he was a state senator, talked to local sherif he gave me a list of all the felons in local government, the hippies that got busted for all kinds of destructive stuff are in charge!!!!!! people like obummers buddy from the weathermen


“My Life > Your Hobby”
What about ALL those Abortions you have had Lady?
What about those Lives?


She ONLY had TWO abortions…… one was inconvenient (she had plans for a trip to Aruba the next summer)… and the other one was because she got FU as a lab rat, and rich guy spooged her gash after buying drinks all night (and he was groddy anyway)


You may Not like Guns, That is Your Right.
You may Not believe in God, That is Your Choice.
But is someone breaks into Your Home
the First Two things You are going to do.
1) Call someone with a Gun.
2) Pray They get there in Time.

Heed the Call-up

The second, third, or further down the list of things I would do is call LE. Protection of my family is a HUGE #1 priority.

Last edited 1 year ago by Heed the Call-up
Roland T. Gunner

While I understand and largely agree with your overall philosophy, your guidelines for justification of deadly force are seriously flawed; at least in Texas, and likely some other jurisdictions. In Texas, you may use lethal force to protect property from theft, and from criminal mischief (vandalism) in the night time. And as far as a threat being avoidable, that is where the popular concept of “castle doctrine” originated. And while I have not studied up on it in a while, generally, as long as you are engaged in legal activity, if someone threatens you with force that could reasonable be… Read more »


Thank you Dean, excellent essay, hadn’t thought about that side of things before. Probably because I was raised around guns and experienced being in war as a young man. Not a pleasant thing but it put the seriousness of where we are today in the proper priority of each day we get nearer to the inevitable.


My Hobby is multi faceted & the Safety of my family & Country TRUMPS ur made up BS….see pic above…


Standing behind her in the picture is a man with a loaded gun, protecting her whether she likes it or not.


No doubt he surely isn’t fit enough to wrestle anyone.


Dean, you nailed it in the second paragraph, one-word RESPONSIBILITY.


they are blissfully ignorant.

Heed the Call-up

Well, not blissful, but truly ignorant.


Regarding the lead graphic. I believe this to be true. A human life is more valuable than any hobby. Assuming, that the hobby is an imminent danger to life. I would bet that I could take her hobby and correlate it the my own danger. Correlation does not imply causation.




Being president may be a privilege, but above all else it is a responsibility. Chief among the responsibilities is preservation of the union. Current behavior looks like he is attempting to do the opposite.


You don’t like guns; You have an aversion to guns; You fear guns; You aren’t interested in guns, etc. Okay, I respect that. But, heck, don’t deny me my right to guns. I’m a law-abiding American. Years ago, someone argued with me, “Why can’t we be like Japan; no guns, no crime and you can walk anywhere you want?” My reply, “When the US becomes a uni-racial, uni-lingual, monocultural country with a tradition of societal civility, then I’ll consent to disarmament.”


Put another way – I can walk almost anywhere public at any time of da6 or night without fear of violence or crime. There are places I would fear to go at any time even armed. Fortunately for me I have no reason to ever go to those places. Why would anyone argue that it is useful to attack and denigrate those of us who live in our “safe spaces” when we contribute nothing to the hazards in the dangerous locals? WTF not go after the dangerously people or provide protection in the dangerous places – unless those demanding action… Read more »


Mt Life>Your misconceptions


Anybody know how to spell a “Bronx Cheer”?

Last edited 1 year ago by JoeUSooner



Thank you! I’ll use that in the future. 🙂

Get Out

She should research what the LE (Someone with a gun) response time is in her area should an intruder come for tea.


Time to quote various authors on this subject!   Hoplophobia Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is also used to describe the “fear of firearms” or the “fear of armed citizens.” HOPLOPHOBIA. (1966) From the Greek___(weapon) plus __ (terror). An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user. Not equivalent to normal apprehension in the presence of an armed enemy. Hoplon also means… Read more »


Are you sitting down because RoyD is going to get real. Can someone point out to me where the photo at the first of the article has anything to do with guns? Go ahead, I’ll wait. I did not see anything in the article stating that. And, while I breezed through it, because I hate sloppy writing, perhaps it is in there. Still waiting. When this is done, whether by the author or as creative editing by Ammoland, it is the same thing as LYING! Don’t lie to me and expect me to pay any attention to anything you have… Read more »

Heed the Call-up

Roy, I usually agree with everything you post, however, the sign states my life is greater than your hobby. Being aware of the Leftist message makes clear that it is meant as her life means more than your RKBA. So it is quite apparent that the first photo has *everything* to do with firearms and your RKBA.


I do my best to not make assumptions. Others are free to do so if they wish. I would have settled for a notation of where, when, and more importantly a news article about what was being protested. That, however, was not provided. But, fear not, I am still waiting.




If RoyD has to ‘get real’ does that mean previously he was a fake?


Well, considering you are the subject matter expert on “fakery”, why not just tell us instead of subjecting us to supposition.