Why Anti-Gunners Need Violence to Push Their Agenda

When an anti-gunner gets the opportunity to encourage people to support gun control laws, it’s always done in a dishonest way. Everything from the propaganda terms they use, such as “gun violence,” “assault weapon,” “weapons of war,” and so on, to the way they disregard their own culpability when it comes to violence in America. Gun-related deaths most often occur in gun free zones.

Those who are willing to commit acts of violence pay no attention to these laws, yet anti-gunners push for more gun control against all the evidence.

When gun control activists are questioned on the topic of stopping violence in America, they always blame the violence on guns. They’ll use the term “gun violence” as a way of implying that without the gun, the violence wouldn’t have occurred, or that the gun caused the violent behavior. In other words, “the killer wouldn’t have killed had it not been for the influence the gun had over him.”

These arguments are ridiculous, but they use them anyway because a good portion of society will believe this type of rhetoric and fabricated narrative. The gun control argument is not necessarily designed to make sense but rather to influence by manipulating the emotions of people who can’t think for themselves. The idea that a gun could cause or influence violent behavior is a fallacy and most likely comes from the internal thoughts of those making the accusation. The argument for the most ridiculous ideas can be won if those making the argument are persistent and unwavering, regardless of how irrational the argument may be.

The idea that possessing a gun could influence the behavior of an individual is a particularly disturbing concept because it says much more about the person making the accusation.

Sigmund Freud coined the term “Projection.” Projection is a psychological defense mechanism where individuals attribute their own undesirable thoughts, feelings, or motives to others. It is often used as a way of avoiding responsibility for one’s own beliefs by assigning them to someone else.

With respect to gun-grabbers accusing people of behaving reactively when in possession of a gun, they may be revealing much more about themselves than they realize. Who should we be more concerned with when it comes to violent behavior, the person who has carried a gun for decades and never exhibited an act of violence toward others, or the person who is convinced that carrying a gun will induce some hidden, rageful behavior locked away in the human psyche of “others?”

Often, the anti-gun crowd will say things like “we need to do something” when talking about acts of human violence when a gun is involved. This implies that if we support the next gun control law that’s being proposed, we are somehow helping the situation. It’s also used when emotions are running high because it allows anyone watching the option to abandon all reason and react emotionally without any regard to facts or logic. “We need to do something” implies that it’s OK to violate the Second Amendment as long as the emotional reaction to the event is powerful enough. This makes emotion the dominating driving force in the argument. In a recent interview, rapper Flavor Flav said exactly that.

“Now things are really, really getting out of control where even kids are going into their parents rooms, they’re taking their parents’ guns to school and they’re doing these massive school shootings. You know what I’m saying and the whole nine. I mean, you know, theres, you know, I mean, it’s gotta stop. You know what I’m sayin? When is all of this killing gonna stop? The only way it’s gonna stop is if we put a ban on the people that are not legally, legalized to have guns.”

When people say things like this, they are telling you that they don’t care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the 2nd Amendment. They want emotion to be the dominating driving force in the argument.

This tells us a lot about anti-gun activists and their unwillingness to actually do something to stop human violence. They don’t seem to care about preventing deaths. Their mission is clearly to ban guns.

This idea of doubling down on the same laws that are already in place gives the impression that these people are doing something that is to be considered morally superior as a way of putting themselves on a pedestal in the hopes of achieving social accolades. Why else would you call for banning the possession of guns by people who are already banned from possessing guns?

Another version of this argument is the, “we need more background checks.” of course this argument doesn’t make sense, especially because in the cities where the most violence occurs we have the strictest gun laws which include background checks and often “may issue” jurisdictions that give permitting authorities the ability to simply deny gun ownership based on their own interpretation of a person’s moral character.

The reason anti-gun activists double down on the same laws is that they don’t want to actually fix the problem of violence in America. Politicians need violence so they can offer protection under their leadership and gain votes in the process.

Anti-lobby groups need violence because, without it, their funding would dry up. Left-wing legislators need violence because, without it, they would not be able to justify gun restrictions. Low-level anti-gun activists like those who join Moms Demand Action need violence so they can feel good about themselves while pretending to fight against it. Have you ever seen anti-gun activists raising their picket signs in the south side of Chicago, where the most violence occurs? I didn’t think so. Violence is their friend, especially when a gun is involved. What they are really trying to stop is your ability to exercise your rights.

So, although we like to believe that violence doesn’t serve anyone, we should always recognize that it most definitely does serve some. The problem is that it serves those with ill intent. When we hear anti-gun activists rambling on about how we “need to do something,” or how we must implement more of the same gun laws, which are already in place and only make matters worse, we understand their position in the hierarchy of gun control.

These are the foot soldiers and are typically either severely confused and uninformed about gun laws and the rights we have under the Second Amendment, or they are among those who simply don’t care about disarming their fellow citizens.

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.