Guns & Gaslighting
Reading Time: 10-12 minutes
LAYING IT OUT:
Let me give you one example of how it has spread, just to kick things off. This is from a Global News opinion piece posted after the new Canadian assault rifle ban was announced:
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday described these firearms as 'designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.' This is disingenuous.”
"Let’s be clear: we are not talking about machine guns or any other kind of automatic weapon. Those are already prohibited in Canada. Semi-automatic firearms are much different than automatic weapons — they fire as quickly as the user can press the trigger. Furthermore, all semi-automatic centre-fire rifles are legally limited to a magazine capacity of five."
We are supposed to believe this comes from a “neutral” party - a guy who at least says that he doesn’t own assault rifles, or want to own them, and who feels he (and the vast majority of us!) are not even a little bit affected by the laws around them. Reading the article and his pretty clear stance on the guns neutrality seems like a stretch, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and take that at face value: he is disinterested, and not simply an apologist for the gun lobby. That makes it worse actually.
So what’s the problem?
It’s all problematic actually. The only thing not misleading or simply outright false is to say automatic weapons are prohibited. The whole article is full of the this kind of stuff, the typical things you will hear about assault weapons from the gun lobby, and that are largely or totally bullshit. If the writer is not actively participating then this is just a sign of how well it has taken root in our culture.
There is a lot we could say about the article, but one thing I would point out for now to illustrate: there is nothing remotely disingenuous about Trudeau’s description, and saying so is a huge red flag of the overarching problem.
Trudeau’s definition is pretty much exactly what assault rifles are made for, and claiming otherwise is bullshit. It is also obviously bullshit - a fact that begins to outline the darker aspects of the larger picture, but for now: killing lots of people seems fairly clearly what what assault rifles are for right?
No? Well, let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth and look at an early working definition used by DARPA while developing the AR15 rifle - it is one that the author actually mentions by name in his article:
"Assault Rifle: This task was initiated to provide a weapon better suited to the individual soldier. A lighter, more effective weapon/ammunition system capable of delivering accurately aimed, high rates of fire at fleeing targets is desired.“ (emphasis mine)
Ah, Trudeau forgot the “fleeing targets” part. Very disingenuous.
The quote above is directly from a de-classified report on the testing and development of the AR15 for the US military back in the 1960’s. That description is was what they were aiming for. And they hit it out of the park. Remember that definition well and you won't need to remember much else about these guns when it comes to public safety.
An American soldier fires his M16 rifle into a suspected Viet Cong occupied area on Sept. 8, 1967. Source: DARPA
So I have no idea WTF the author believes assault rifles were invented for, or what he would prefer we all believe, because he didn’t bother to explain further. At best he didn’t research it very much - but Trudeau is pretty much bang on. But if we presume the author really believes what he wrote, how can something so clear, and so pivotal to the question of these rifles be so badly misunderstood?
It’s not just the history of the guns or their purpose. The rest of the author’s commentary sings from the same songbook; downplaying the danger, overplaying the effectiveness of the current laws and the ineffectiveness of the new ones, and generally serving up misleading or outright false gun lobby bullshit. Whether the author is an unwitting victim, or is an apologist for it, is anybody’s guess. Doesn’t matter in the least as far as effect goes - and again: the stuff he says is surprisingly typical. As this happens more and more often it starts to form an even clearer picture, and that picture is the result of a decades-long campaign of misinformation and posturing from gun advocates.
Blatant lies, trivializing conflicting information, misdirection, all coming from purportedly reputable or “neutral” sources, and all flying in the face of readily available evidence. In sum, and if you know much about the psychology of abuse, this should ring serious alarm bells, because this adds up to gaslighting, and that is way, way past everyday bullshitting and politics. This is what gets me worked about the gun control debate.
The gun-lobby has been lying about assault rifles to keep them in play and put us at risk, and they are, and have been for some time, employing techniques crafted and honed by psychological abusers and predators. They are aiming that shit at you, and everybody else too - and it is working, which is a serious problem.
So everything here is ostensibly about assault rifles, but really, everything here is motivated by the desire to show you, what kind of evil shit the gun lobby is getting up to, every single day.
The reason you are here at all is probably the assault weapon “controversy", so let me start with that before we get into the gaslighting thing. I’ll just cut straight to it:
Yes, assault rifles exist, and no - they are not all already banned.
Yes, we can call them assault rifles, and we do not need scare quotes, or any “so-called” bullshit attached.
Semi-automatic civilian versions are just as dangerous as military ones.
The gun lobby likes to compare assault weapons to other rifles that are less controversial in appearance to suggest assault rifles are no more dangerous than those. The equivalency is often just bullshit, but to the extent that it’s true it is because they are all more dangerous than we generally appreciate, not the other way around.
Assault rifles are the most lethal of an extremely dangerous category of gun: the semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine. But “most” means a lot. Assault rifles are far more deadly than almost any other type of firearm - like 5-6X times as deadly. That is not a projection, that is how deadly they have actually been over the last several decades - and it has been getting worse, not better.
When assault rifles are used
6x
the number of people are shot.
The lethal functionality of assault rifles is not well-controlled by current laws (that includes the new ban).
Mass shootings are the biggest area of concern for assault weapons. Don’t be distracted by chatter about general “gun crime” and gangs or whatever. Assault rifles are always very dangerous, but in the context of mass murder there is no other civilian accessible weapon, or any firearm really, that comes even close to their lethal potential.
Now, let me be equally clear on the “controversy” surrounding them:
The statements above are facts. Anyone that tells you different is full of shit. Period.
They are lying to your face, or they do not understand these guns, or their history, nearly as well as they think they do. But more than that: they are gaslighting you, intentionally, or otherwise.
And, much like my framing of the issue, it’s not even a bit subtle.
Gaslighting: The Gun Lobby's Playbook
- They tell blatant lies.
- They withhold information from the victim.
- They discount conflicting information.
- They block and divert the victim's attention from outside sources.
- They "poison the well" of any source of information they don't control.
- They deny they ever said something, even when you have proof.
- They tell you, or others, that you are crazy/dumb/ignorant.
- They use verbal abuse, usually in the form of jokes.
- They trivialize ("minimising") the victim's worth.
- They tell you everyone else is a liar.
- They project.
- They try to align people against you.
- They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
- They create confusion because they know it weakens people.
- Their actions do not match their words.
- They wear you down over time.
- They undermine their victim by gradually weakening them and their thought processes.
This reads like a handbook for psychological abuse, and reads like the playbook that the gun lobby and it’s hard-core proponents have been using, against you and me, for decades now.
But it’s not just them anymore - others’s are following this guide, and literally every thing on that list is being actively employed every day, in Canada, right now. A lot of people, like the author of that article, are helping them and, one would hope, most don’t even know it.
The Problem is Everywhere Now
That article above shows how it pops up in the media, but that is usually the softer approach (which is great for sliding the knife in deeply, while nobody feels it happen) but if you have openly asked even remotely hard questions about assault rifles you have probably had far less polite and gentle experiences. It quickly gets nasty and patronizing, because that has been so normalized now that people don’t think twice about literally abusing others this way.
Think about conversations you may have had around this. Have you really considered what you have been exposed to, or what you may be exposing others to?
If you have openly questioned the value, or necessity for, or risk factors of civilian assault rifles for sure you have been lied to at some point. That is just a given really:
- They tell blatant lies.
- They withhold information from the victim.
- They discount conflicting information.
Perhaps you have had the experience of being simply dismissed as a “snowflake” or a “libtard”? A hater of guns, a hater of freedom and democracy? Of property rights? Of the right to protect oneself? Etc. Etc.
- 8. They use verbal abuse, usually in the form of jokes.
11. They project.
12. They try to align people against you.
14. They create confusion because they know it weakens people.
Were you mocked for being afraid of “scary black guns”, or “just” of the term “assault rifle", or that you are using that term just to create fear and confusion?
- 7. They tell you, or others, that you are crazy/dumb/ignorant.
8. They use verbal abuse, usually in the form of jokes.
9. They trivialize the victim's worth.
11. They project.
Maybe someone was just harping on you because you would not put the terms assault rifle or assault weapon in scare quotes, showing how ignorant you are of even the terminology, or how you are using made-up propaganda to try to mislead people?
- 1. They tell blatant lies.
6. They deny they ever said something, even when you have proof.
7. They tell you that you are dumb/ignorant.
11. They project.
14. They create confusion because they know it weakens people.
This goes on and on:
- 16. They wear you down over time.
And it all adds up:
- 17. They undermine their victim by gradually weakening them and their thought processes.
If you have been hearing crap like this then these people are not just misleading you, they are gaslighting you, and you may want to think about taking that shit more seriously, and treat it accordingly
If you are the one saying things like this you need to take a long hard look at WTF you are participating in, and ask yourself if that is who you really want to be. And maybe have a look at the facts about these guns without blinders?
The Gaslighting Goes Way, Way Past the Gun Lobby
Being lied to about guns by the gun lobby is not new or shocking, although appreciating the real scope of it and how abusive it actually is might shock just a little - it did me anyway. Still, when that abuse is coming from the very vocal minority of the gun lobby who supports assault rifles with obvious disdain and anger, it is easy to identify, and easy to see coming.
When it comes from the mouths and pens and keyboards of politicians, and journalists, and friends, even from anti-gun people that is a different order of problem. Even the parties leading the charge to ban assault weapons use scare quotes and things like “military-style” or “assault-type” weapons and dance around the realities, and that isn’t good: they help to downplay the real effectiveness of military optimizations and accessories. Far too many have been convinced that some guns really do just “look” more dangerous, without asking themselves why that is so, and in spite of lots of good evidence that they are just that.
Any mind game on this scale would be disturbing, but it also happens to be protecting weapons that can kill you, your friends, family, children - easily, and in great numbers. I think it matters more, and it matters that this is so clearly a selfish agenda. It’s not even lying for a "greater good”.
And all this is not even subtle, or hidden, or even particularly rare. It is just normalized to a large degree.
This is not conspiracy thinking - the evidence is clear, and the facts are falsifiable (good luck with that). It's also not just "having a different opinion", it is not just lying, not just “bullshitting” or “playing” politics. When it fits together and feeds into a historical campaign of deceit and distortion that attacks people’s credibility and intelligence like this it is simply abuse, and it’s sleazy and dangerous, and — again — working too damn well.
So many people have been confused, or at least superficially convinced by bullshit statements such as “people are just scared of cosmetics” or "these guns are the same as any other” that it has seriously impacted the way we manage the hazard and risk of these guns in our society. That is no small thing.
The new assault rifle ban is just another example of how this can extend from everyday people right up to the lawmakers that are —theoretically — fighting to get these guns off the streets. The laws are complicated, confusing, and not nearly as effective as they should be.
This is a result of that well-designed confusion, and also of compromises reached after prolonged battling in the political sphere. The result is gun laws, including the new ban, that simply do not mitigate the risks of semi-automatic and assault rifles like they are meant to do. Gun advocates know this, and despite their dislike of the ban — and they do dislike that ban — this is still overall better for the gun lobby.
So the gun lobby is right when they say the gun laws are generally ineffective here.
Of course they usually don’t mention that they are the reason why. They are the ones who created the confusion and the resistance that prevented better laws from being put in place. In typical gaslighting fashion this is turned on the victim, and they obscure or overlook what is clear and evident: that they worked hard to undermine the effectiveness of gun laws, and instead use it as an example of how the other side is clueless and incompetent. This is twists the facts and further poisons the well for us all.
The guns really matter too, and for all of us. Gun advocates and their children can and do get shot and killed by mass shooters, and they deserve to be as safe from that just as much as anyone else. It can be hard, but it helps to remember that people like me are not just arguing against “gun people”, we are arguing for them too. That is hard to remember when the fur is flying, but it can help keep things on track. Sometimes anyway.
A public without firm anchors to fact and logical process, without mutual respect, just functions poorly and creates waste and harm. It is never good. Turning a public safety issue into a gaslight campaign, and polarizing our politics even more hurts our whole society and democracy even more. It’s one more nail in the coffin of a free thinking and informed public, and let’s be honest: we can’t afford many more of those.
Bullshit on this level and so normalized is a serious concern for all of us, regardless of the focus. “All of us" means gun people too, and we should be especially empathetic to those that have been victimized by extremely well-funded and developed bullshit. Bullshit that was designed to make them think exactly the way they do about guns, and to make them overlook and discount the evidence of dead bodies and shattered lives that always follow this style of weapon. It has also desensitized them to abusing other people and their right to a fair and safe society, all to serve their own ends.
Wrap-Up
Focus on the facts and the guns, on what they can do, what they have already done. Do not be distracted by the gun lobby, their tactics, or their railing against the “injustice” of laws they know damn well do not really go far enough. They also have billions of dollars at stake and have show they have zero compunction about playing fair, or dealing with the truth. They are not alone in this - we have all seen it time and again with industries chasing profits over any public safety consideration. Cigarette, drugs, cars, anywhere that the bottom line is big enough and the bodies can be kept far enough away.
Individuals vary, but many owners of assault weapons are laughing behind our backs as they exploit loopholes, and collectively they use all this noise and furor as ammunition to undermine public perception of opposing politicians and positions, and to rally political support by making the whole thing about issues like "rights and freedoms” and the boogyman of “slippery slopes” on what is in fact (if not almost always) a pretty flat landscape.
That is all straight out of the gaslighting playbook.
The rest of us need to understand how gaslighting works in order to see and counter it. We need to understand the guns too, if only a bit, to see how assault rifles and other semi-automatic weapons pose an increased risk over other guns. Once we have that grounding maybe then we can also take note of who is doing the lying and maybe hold our friends as well as our politicians accountable so they clean up their act a bit, and maybe stop acting like assholes.
If you are interested in learning more, like finding out why you are not stupid for fearing assault rifle, or for having concerns over how they are being managed in Canada, there is lot more information broken out over a series of articles called Disarming the Bullshit About Assault Rifles. You can find them here.
Thoughts about the article? Feel free to drop me a line.