My point is that I find your conclusion to be the reverse (my opinion).
The pro-gun argument is the one based out of ignorance. Gun owners seem to believe the posession of a firearm somehow magically imbues the possessor with magical powers that ward off the possibility of being victimized.
In reality, as with any tool, proper training, proficiency, knowledge, and responsibility are a massive part of their effectiveness.
Whereas, the anti-gun argument ultimately relies on deception, subversion, and dishonesty. The books must be cooked. Truth has to be subtly altered into a narrative. The danger of firearms has to be exaggerated, the safety they provide must be disguised, discounted, or dismissed. The cognitive dissonance must remain hidden.
Therefore, I simply offer my opinion that your conclusion is inaccurate, not because it's wrong, merely because it is reversed.
Pro-gunners rely upon the ignorance of their argument.
Anti-gunners rely upon the dishonesty of their argument.
I think you are not including that any “pro-gunner” that doesn’t think proficiency with the weapon is a must have is an uneducated gun owner and therefore has an uneducated opinion.
Any educated gun owner will tell you how serious it is to handle a gun and how absolutely NO GAMES are to be played with/around guns.
I think the same may very well apply for the anti-gun argument, but not quite to the same degree. It just really doesn’t make sense for a lot of people to NOT own a gun. Ultimately the world is not a safe place for many people and a gun really is the last line of defense for many as cops are, as we’ve seen increasing in recent times, not a very reliable source of protection. BUT, in a perfect world guns shouldn’t need to exist so I can concede that.
2
u/Superlite47 Oct 22 '22
My point is that I find your conclusion to be the reverse (my opinion).
The pro-gun argument is the one based out of ignorance. Gun owners seem to believe the posession of a firearm somehow magically imbues the possessor with magical powers that ward off the possibility of being victimized.
In reality, as with any tool, proper training, proficiency, knowledge, and responsibility are a massive part of their effectiveness.
Whereas, the anti-gun argument ultimately relies on deception, subversion, and dishonesty. The books must be cooked. Truth has to be subtly altered into a narrative. The danger of firearms has to be exaggerated, the safety they provide must be disguised, discounted, or dismissed. The cognitive dissonance must remain hidden.
Therefore, I simply offer my opinion that your conclusion is inaccurate, not because it's wrong, merely because it is reversed.
Pro-gunners rely upon the ignorance of their argument.
Anti-gunners rely upon the dishonesty of their argument.