This can only be anecdotal in study, but it is simply too obvious a trend to ignore; in my consistent experience those who are rabidly anti-gun and anti-liberty are emotionally driven individuals with little control over their impulses. The anti-gunner thinks that you should be barred from your rights because they presume that you are an emotional wreck like they are, and likely to use the gun inappropriately during an outburst, like they know that they would indeed do if they went armed.
Consider this: think about the people you know that are the most outspokenly anti-gun; what other characteristics do they exhibit? Who is the most likely individual to get heated and start screaming during a political debate? Who is most likely to throw a drink in someone’s face following a purely verbal exchange (technically, this is an assault, but emotionally stunted individuals don’t care). Who is most likely to interject themselves into other people’s arguments or conflicts? Who is most likely to flip off the other driver that, supposedly, slighted them on the road? Who is most likely to make a scene at a bar or restaurant? Be honest, who? Spoiler, probably not your uncle with a concealed carry permit.
The main-stream media shills that proclaim “blood in the streets” if gun rights are expanded get their predictions wrong every time, but that does not matter; the readership of such trash has no use for facts anyway. And bear in mind that these entities don’t believe their own tripe, but they publish their baseless rantings to fire up their emotionally driven, fact free, base of followers. “Shall issue carry permits? Blood in the streets!” Except not, in fact, the opposite. “Constitutional carry? Blood in the streets!” Except not. However, the antis still worry with every step. Afterall, soon it will be so easy to carry a gun that one might fall into their hands!
What happens if the emotionally governed anti-gunner were to be armed when he finds himself in the grocery store, standing behind some old guy wearing a MAGA hat? Certainly, as Homer said, “the sword itself incites to violence!” The anti puts as much faith in Homer’s sociology as he does in his historical accuracy (spoiler, Homer’s writing is entirely fictional in both regards). What will stop the anti from acting out on his social justice rage and smiting the bigot that stands before him if he has a weapon at his disposal? The horror! A civilized society can’t allow guns or there will be blood in the streets! Afterall, the modern, suburban, elitist anti-gunner is the most civilized being to ever exist, don’t ya’ know? How could an object that demands so much personal responsibility and emotional control be legal! Outrageous! If the erudite, sophisticated, Tesla driving, soy drinking, post-modernist can’t trust himself with a gun, what business do those fly-over country hicks have with guns?
Obviously, this emotional instability plays right into the overall reason that anti-gun zealots are what they are; hatred for individual responsibility. When you are emotionally driven and lack the ability to overcome your impulses with pragmatic calculation, you have no use for individual responsibility, and you are certain to be an anti-gunner as that object personifies individual responsibility and autonomy.
I remember decades ago tv host Phil Donahue started a fight with some critic in an airport. Donahue later said the fight was an example of why people shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns.
I didn’t know the term projection at the time, but that’s exactly what I though he was doing; projecting his emotional instability on the rest of humanity.
Exactly right, that type of individual always presumes that everyone is an equally unstable lunatic who things that others have no right to an opinion that runs contrary to their own world view.