Why Gun Nuts Lie –

[handmade34]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2016/06/why-gun-nuts-lie-i-know-from-experience/

"...stop acting like your little AR-15 is going to stop tyranny.
Just be honest. You like it because it makes your pee-pee big, and when you fire it, it gives you a tingle in your no-no place.
Trust me, I understand...
...A collection of studies from 2012-2013 found that having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death—and that of your spouse and children. If you have a gun (regardless of how it’s stored), everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Gun owners and their families are not more suicidal than non-gun-owners, research shows. Nor are they more likely to have a history of depression or other mental health problems.
But they—and their families—are at significantly increased risk of successfully taking their lives with a gun..."

[anoNY42]

1. It's insulting stuff like this

that keeps two sides of an argument from making progress.

[Human101948]

2. insulting but true...

I say this as a gun owner (not a gun nut.)

[anoNY42]

5. So what do you think is the difference

in the eyes of the folks on this board who think gun owners have guns in order to make their "pee pees" bigger?

They feel the same way about you (presumably a "sane" gun owner) as they do about "gun nuts".

[Human101948]

6. I recognize that there is an element of pee pee power involved in owning a gun...

It is most obviously manifest when people parade, demonstrating their right to open carry. And most tragically when someone tries to win an argument by shooting the other person.

My state is very strict about gun ownership. You have to have a gun permit which can take weeks to process. You cannot carry a loaded gun outside of your house. Concealed carry permits are hard to get. I am fine with all that.

[anoNY42]

8. So you are fine

with being insulted in the way that the OP insulted you? That's just a bit weird.

[yurbud]

48. I have gun owners in my family who fall into both groups

One is a farmer and a hunter.

The other lives in a very safe suburb and thinks he needs the gun to protect his home, and consumes a steady diet of talk radio and Fox News.

I'll let you figure out which is which.

[doc03]

59. I will second that as a gun owner n/t

[forest444]

83. Yep. That's their baby.

Which stands to reason, since I doubt most gun humpers are capable of feeling love for a real baby.

They're victims too in a way, and for that we should sympathize.

[procon]

9. Ah, but it's a well earned insult nonetheless, yeah?

There really isn't any cogent argument to be made about "two sides" of an AR-15; it is 100% a lie.

[anoNY42]

14. Merely owning a certain gun

is enough to "earn" the insult that they gun is merely to make their penis feel larger?

Does that "argument" extend to all guns, or just the scary-looking AR-15?

[Duckhunter935]

16. And males and females?

[Warpy]

31. Hmmm, there seems to be a certain fixation on the penis here

Might want to watch being that self revealing, people at DU aren't like people at other sites, DU people will pick up on it every single time.

As for your wounded feelings, the "gun nut" in the OP refers to people who deny that one basic statistic that has been shown over and over again in study after study, that the greatest predictor of dying from gunshot is having a gun in the home. While it would be useful to break it down into gun type versus risk of violence, that hasn't been done yet. We just know if you own a gun, your risk of being shot goes up and is spread to all others in your home.

Denying facts doesn't make it so, no matter how long or loudly you deny them.

[anoNY42]

32. Not sure what you mean

Are you suggesting that I am the one fixated on penises? Please note that the OP mentioned the (depressingly common) insult about gun owners and their "pee pee"s. I am pushing back against that. I hope you "pick[ed] up on" that.

I am not denying any facts, I am just saddened by the use of insults in these arguments as opposed to the facts you mention.

[procon]

44. Don't know; not my problem, but that seems to be an invreasingly common perception.

Its hard to escape the images society tags on certain groups, but it is a choice. If you're already in that category -- rightly or wrongly -- that's quite likely how others will always perceive you, so just deal with it as best you can.

[Press Virginia]

19. yeah, who cares if the hysteria over AR-15s isn't based reality

More people will be struck by lightning this year than have been murdered or injured in a mass shooting the last 7 (where the shooter had an AR 15)....and that includes the CA and Orlando shootings.

133 mass shootings since 2009....17 of those were by people who used an AR or Variant. Total deaths roughly 160. Injuries roughly 275

And THAT is the gun that has the gun controllers screaming about weapons of war

[Buzz cook]

24. Lightning fatalities

The Orlando shooter killed more people than lightning killed in a year.

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml

[Press Virginia]

25. Which is why is said "struck" not killed

[Duckhunter935]

26. Reading is fundamental

[Buzz cook]

29. And yet what I wrote was accurate

Just because apologists looked for a stat they could quote mine doesn't change the fact that more people are killed by mass shooters than are killed by lightning and more people are injured by firearms than are injured by lightning.

Now here's another point. Government and private organizations have been doing what they could through regulation or education to reduce lightning injury or fatality. No organization is dedicated to stopping that activity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. re: "...stopping that activity."

Is there a mass shooter still on the loose? Aside from the beltway shooters, most of these guys shoot and are killed or captured within hours, if not minutes. Am I wrong here? Cops do this all the time. BTW, they have guns.

[Buzz cook]

38. Is there an NRA?

An organization dedicated to stopping regulation and education aimed at reducing gun violence.

[Press Virginia]

40. If you wanted to reduce gun violence you'd target the weapon most often used

which isn't those scary black rifles with the pistol grips. More people are beaten to death than killed by rifles

[Buzz cook]

53. If you want to target gun violence you address all guns

And you ignore people who want to distract from the debate by spewing meaningless statistics and quibble about what particular thing needs to address.

[Press Virginia]

57. How does an AWB address all gunS? It's pretty obvious that you don't really

care what the facts are, you've been told AR15's are evil and that's what you believe.

Who cares if rifles are used less than knives to murder people...that AR looks scary.
Who cares if mass shooters use pistols 70% vs the 11% in which an "assault weapon" was used..the AR has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug
Who cares if it was only 160 people since 2009 were actually killed by a mass shooter with an AR...it's obviously a death machine.

If you want to reduce gun violence, you don't target the type of gun used in less than 1% of murders. 248 people were killed by rifles in the latest FBI report on murder....that's less than were killed with shotguns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. TY for the non-sequitur...

...and the evidence that you have no interest in actually working to cut violence.

[Buzz cook]

54. Non sequitor?

It is in line with my post.

The NRA is actively involved in thwarting efforts to curb gun violence and there is no such organization trying to stop efforts to protect citizens from lightning.

Did you miss the point of my post?

On edit let me copy and paste what I wrote.

Now here's another point. Government and private organizations have been doing what they could through regulation or education to reduce lightning injury or fatality. No organization is dedicated to stopping that activity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. Please excuse me...

...I thought lightning was a euphemism.

[Buzz cook]

67. No problem nt

nt

[Press Virginia]

33. youre trying to argue something I didn't say. And my stat comes from

Every Town USAs analysis on mass shootings and, according to them, more people have been killed by lightning than by ARs over the time period they looked at.

More people will be struck by lightning this year than the number of people who've been killed, in mass shootings, by a scary looking rifle that isn't used that often

[Buzz cook]

37. How many people are struck by lightning?

I'd be nice to know. Then I could do a quick google and compare that number with people injured or killed in mass shootings.

[Press Virginia]

39. at 51 deaths/yr average (over the last 20 years) and a 10% fatality rate...that's about 500/yr

According to the NOAA, over the last 20 years, the United States averaged 51 annual lightning strike fatalities, placing it in the second position, just behind floods for deadly weather. In the US, between 9% and 10% of those struck die, for an average of 40 to 50 deaths per year (28 in 2008).




[link:https://www.google.com/#q=how+many+people+are+struck+by+lightning+in+the+us|

[Buzz cook]

56. At 103

that makes the Orlando shooter by himself as deadly and dangerous as 1/5 of all lightning strikes.

Would it make sense to pass laws to address that level of death and injury? Maybe one fifth the amount we spend on preventing deaths and injury from lightning?

[Press Virginia]

58. If you banned every rifle on the planet, the actual number of USgun murders would drop by 248 people

2x as many people are beaten to death...

[Buzz cook]

68. Is it more difficult to kill a person by beating or by shootung?

Are you saying that we shouldn't attempt to control rifles, because 248 lives are not worth the effort?

[Press Virginia]

70. Evidently shooting them is harder because not a lot of people are being shot

by those rifles you want to ban.

You want to ban millions of rifles to save 248 people who were murdered...and that 248 is down from 330 5 years earlier. Doing nothing saved more people from rifles than anything you want done

[procon]

45. Has a lightning ever "deliberately" killed 49 people in one incident?

Why would you even think to compare random acts of nature with premeditated mass murders? This is not a rational thought, let alone a cogent argument. Compare other acts of mass murders (either accidental or deliberate) and see what laws were put in effect to control similar such events and minimize further harm. Food borne illnesses, lethal drug reactions, public transportation, and many other categories have all benefited by increased safety regs, and so will tougher gun laws.

[Press Virginia]

60. Not really the point. The hysteria over "assault weapons" isn't based on rational thinking

When you look at the actual numbers, these guns are less dangerous to the general public, than the weather.

Banning every single rifle on the planet would result in 248 fewer murders...and that's only if the gun used in 70% of mass shootings isn't used to kill 248 people.

133 mass shootings...an "assault weapon" was used in 17 of them.

[procon]

61. Ban every conceivable type of assault weapon; it's a starting point.

BTW, it's a rhetorical question, but how many victims died in those mass shootings where an assault weapon was used? One would be too many.

[Press Virginia]

62. 160...since 2009. And 49 of them were killed 2 weeks ago

Banning them is based on nothing but irrational fear

[procon]

65. Fine. Call it "irrational" if you need that ruse to prop up your POV.

There's nothing irrational about fearing weapons intended for wars, that's more self preservation and a matter of common sense. What is truly irrational is civilians who think they are entitled to possess military style guns that have no other intended function other than to kill people.

[Press Virginia]

69. You have more to fear from the weather than that scary looking rifle

Millions in circulation and 17 of them have you believing it's a weapon of war threatening to kill you unless you kill it first.

Shotguns kill more people per year than those "weapons of war"

[procon]

72. Rightly or wrongly, that is the public perception that haunts gun activists.

The multiple excuses recited to protect guns over human lives only reinforces that impression, it does not change how the majority of the public supports basic gun laws. You have no one to blame but yourselves and you need to come to terms with how the actions and attitudes of far too many gun owners have created distrust and disgust. No one is working to change public opinion, and it doesn't help your cause when squads of heavily armed men do stupid stuff like stage a militant show of force in a family restaurant full of kids. In counterpoint, why haven't responsible gun owners been willing to clean house and separate themselves from the lobbyists, the militias and the fringe groups by supporting public safety laws that protect people as well as reasonable gun ownership?

[Press Virginia]

74. The public perception is based on a lie. It's both irrational to fear being killed

by a gun that is rarely used to kill anyone and think that if not for rifles those 248 people would not have been murdered by some other means....because murderers tend to murder

Squads of heavily armed men...you mean citizens who lawfully assemble and murder no one with their guns? Guns that aren't used often to murder people?

Your fear is no more rational than someone screaming about Muslims because a few Muslims went on a killing spree. Do you demand Muslims "clean house" and separate themselves from the fringe groups....in the name of public safety? No...because it wouldn't be rational. But, here you are doing the essentially same thing because of 17 events, out of more than 130, where someone used a particular type of gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. It's a moral panic, and those are *never* rational n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. why are you more afraid of mass shootings...

...than the onesie, twosies?

[procon]

66. There's no distinction when innocent people are senselessly killed by a madman with a gun.

Why would you think that even one gun death is any less tragic?

[Press Virginia]

71. What about a madman with a knife? More people are stabbed to death than killed with

rifles

[procon]

73. I see what you're doing.

Or why not cobras or Cyanide?

OK, I'll play. Military assault weapons were once banned, now they aren't, so where does the insidious proliferation of weapons creep stop? Is there ever a limit... 1 gun or 1000, a box of bullets or a fully stocked warehouse? Why not a legally owned missile launcher, a tank, hand grenades, maybe mustard gas, or DU rounds... where do you draw the line?

[Press Virginia]

75. Actually they were never banned. They just couldn't look a certain way

And people do legally own tanks, hand grenades and DU rounds.

I can make mustard gas with common household chemicals.

It's always the same thing...make believe a semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle and then pretend people are demanding to own missile launchers

[RME_SFC]

81. Well, The ATF has a well drawn and enforced line relating to the items you

listed. With the exception of mustard gas, one can get clearance to own these items.
You can download the ATF Guidebook here:

https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/guides/importation-verification/download/firearms-imporation-verification-guidebook--complete.pdf

[Skittles]

55. hilarious

hundreds of thousands of victims? meh
penis analogies? OMG!!!!

[anoNY42]

82. Your zero-sum thinking...

I didn't say that guns were not a net negative with many people hurt and killed. My point here is that it is counter-productive to resort to childishness like "pee pee" jokes when talking about gun owners (some of whom are Democrats).

You seem to be engaging in zero-sum thinking, where my disgust at childish insults precludes my support of gun control measures actually aimed at saving lives.

[Press Virginia]

3. so that "weapon of war" wouldn't actually be any good in an actual war?

gosh...next we'll learn it's because the AR isn't a military rifle after all.

So we need:

Mandatory licenses
License renewals
Mandatory training
Mandatory insurance
Operating laws
Operating age limits
Restrict some models
Require safety inspections
Mandatory registration
Background checks

because of suicides and accidental deaths?

I wonder which models need further restriction? The ones that aren't the "weapons of war" we've been told they are after one of the few times they've actually been used to kill people? and YES, it is a FEW times. Every Town USA puts the number at 11% when it comes to Mass Shootings over the past 7 years. The actual death toll in that 7 years caused by these "death machines" in those incidents? 105. Injuries? 195.....add in the 2 most recent incidents and the number rises to about 160 with 275 injuries.....in 7 years.
More people get struck by lightning in a year than have been killed or injured in a mass shooting where an AR was used.

And are the people, who don't follow gun laws NOW going to start following the new ones?

[safeinOhio]

10. I'd be happy with

any semi-auto that can hold more than 3 rounds have the same restrictions as full autos do now. Courts say they are constitutional.

By the way I'm a gun owning hunter and that kind of law would not affect my hunting or self defense.

[procon]

12. Works for me.

In November, California voters will decide on a couple of new gun-control proposals that would require background checks for ammunition sales and ban high-capacity magazines. The proposal would also license ammunition sellers, mandate the reporting of lost or stolen guns, establish a process for recovering firearms from people prohibited from owning them, and notify the federal government when someone is added to that prohibited persons database.

California already has some of the country’s strictest gun regulations, and some cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, have already. passed laws prohibiting high-capacity magazines,, so add that to your list as well

[Press Virginia]

18. And the new law won't make a dent

[Duckhunter935]

27. All those laws worked well

In San Bernardino

[procon]

46. They naysayers said much the same with seatbelt laws, helmet laws, insurance laws... nt

[Duckhunter935]

47. Laws work to a point

But some seem to think a background check will stop most firearms deaths

[procon]

49. "Some" people may, but most of the rest of us believe

a background check is another important tool in the whole process of trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who cannot be trusted to have a lethal weapon. No laws are 100% effective, but if gun control laws serve as a simple deterrent that might prevent some innocent person from being killed, that's a win.

[Duckhunter935]

50. How many of the high profile

Mass murders involving firearms would have been prevented by background checks ?

[procon]

51. There is no valid argument for opposing background checks for every gun purchase. nt

[Duckhunter935]

52. I don't have a problem with it

I just hope people realize it will make actually very little difference.

[Duckhunter935]

4. Nice insults

What about the female firearms owner, does it make their pee pee big too? Crap like what you post is just sick and needs to be called out and shunned for the sexist bull it us. Shame on you

[safeinOhio]

11. I don't often agree with you, but

I do think both sides should be civil and that includes calling names like "grabbers, controllers" as well "gun nuts and humpers".

[Duckhunter935]

15. I tend to agree with all but controllers, that is what they

Want to do and is not insulting at all.

[safeinOhio]

17. How about a new rule for

"out of control gun rights people"

I still find "controllers" offensive as it is applied to anyone that disagrees NRA talking points. Even those that own firearms.

[Duckhunter935]

20. Well we can always disagree

So where is this mythical NRA talking points list? Or is it anything you disagree with. What new rule do you want? I think Skinner's are good but now selectively enforced once more when DU members that are firearms owners and believe in the RKBA. Insults are allowed and will just get worse as the waters are tested.

So what do you suggest instead if controller for someone who is for gun control?

[safeinOhio]

21. How about

" someone who is for gun control" your words work well.

Does not have to be a rule, but names, like Trump uses, do little to change minds.

I see a post that used "grabbers" was pulled today.

[Duckhunter935]

23. Then you should be saying

Someone who is for the right to keep and bear arms. So one with grabbers was pulled, good. What about the many that say gun humpers, delicate flower and others. Soon ammosexual will be back and not to mention the penis or more pee pee insults. As you know, it is very one sided and the insults from one side are all but applauded here. I aan sure you will alert in them as like you say the Trump like insults do little to change minds.

[safeinOhio]

34. I agree and will

I think name calling only helps with those that already agree. In fact it is more likely to keep someone trying to decide revolt against the argument.

just my opinion

[Duckhunter935]

42. One of the reasons I never say anything like grabber

[DashOneBravo]

35. Nothing wrong with civil.

I do think both sides should be civil and that includes calling names like "grabbers, controllers" as well "gun nuts and humpers".

[Igel]

7. It's not just gun nuts.

Lots of nuts lie.

Separating out what's relevant from what isn't is damned difficult.

If you have a gun in your home you're more likely to have that household experience a gun-related suicide. Why? Because there's a gun there. Take away the gun, and there won't be a gun-related suicide. Might still be a suicide. If it's a man doing the suiciding, it's likely there'll be a suicide. But it won't be gun related. It'll be harder to engage in that particular end-of-life decision.

Similarly, if you have a pool you're at greater risk of drowning. Some is safety. Some is stupidity. But the correlation holds, and there's even a bit of causality thrown in to obscure what's relevant and not relevant. Risky things create risk. Do you ban all risks? Ooh, a helicopter government that infantlizes the population and makes it less resilient. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Depends if you're an overbearing mommy or a an overbearing daddy.

If you have more of an honor-culture you'll have a higher death rate by gun. And knife. And car. Heck, you get more bumps in the hall with an honor culture than a shame culture because of differences in how to deal with personal space--one uses it as a means of expressing hostility or respect, the other doesn't. You get more fights and personal injuries in one than the other. Put the same kind and quantity of guns in a shame culture and you'll have fewer deaths than in an honor culture. Quick: What causes the difference in funerals, the guns or the culture behind the gun? Change the culture and you save lives and reduce violence. Or we can have gun control, programs to reduce knife violence and fisticuffs, ways to reduce road rage. One change or many, and we opt "many." We act like Occam's razor might cut our throat.

Where I live has a lower incidence of gun ownership, in all likelihood, than were I work. Where I work had one gun-related death in a 5-mile radius in the last decade. No homicides. My neighborhood had the same number of gun-related deaths. Both deaths were of minors and ruled accidental. Go a just outside my neighborhood, to that 5-mile radius, and there have been maybe 8 or 9 in the last 5 years, mostly homicides, mostly at bars and clubs or in public spaces, by people who were offended by something somebody else said (low SES, all non-white, very low-class Southern). Where do I feel safer? Where there's the lower death rate, even though there are more guns. Note that I live in a very (D) area, but work in a strongly (R) area, so let's not say it's a partisan thing. It's not. And unless those two "accidents" included a suicide or two, there were no suicides by gun.

Most of the talk of gun control looks at individual, fat-tailed risks because they're scary and we can leverage fear. It uses the same methodology that proponents of restricting rights because of Muslim terrorism use. It lets us talk about the tools or the people involved and banning or blaming them and not the societal problems behind them, because talking about societal problems is going to be offensive to many of those we don't want to offend. It often amounts to blaming the victim, a no-no even when the only sound approach is to blame the victim. It's like protecting from criticism the idiot who runs around a pool, dives into the shallow end, and breaks his neck, or the dork who gets same caught in a pool's filtration system--it's not the idiot, it's the pool that's to blame. (No, really, it's the idiot.) For many, it's difficult to sort out what's relevant from what's coincidental.

It also gets into what are appropriate social constraints on imposing risk mitigation on others. Lots of choices we make carry with them severe health consequences. We insist on government intrusion in areas that we think important to us. We defend to the death the right to privacy when we think that important to us. We disagree on what falls into each area or category, and that's intolerable because while diversity of trivia matters, we insist on uniformity of thought.

[freebrew]

22. Jefferson warned us...

when he said congress' job was not to make laws protecting us from ourselves.

It seems we've been ignoring that advice for some time now.

[Android3.14]

13. Less than helpful OP doesn't even fulfill the promise.

The OP is actually harming the cause they imply they support, namely gun control, by needlessly insulting his supposed audience, gun owners.

Either this is just clickbait to make gun dumpers happy, in which case the author is untrustworthy, or the author is an idiot.

[Eleanors38]

28. I am seeing an increased number of criticisms of gun-control...

politics in MSM, esp. of MSM. The gyst of these criticisms is Persistent ignorance of the subject, and Persistent use of insults. Maybe that's the Pee-Pee thing?

[DonCoquixote]

36. as much as I dislike the gun culture

I do have to disagree with one point here.

When you say "you would be no match for Marines" well, the Afghans would tell you otherwise. As much as a I hate to give devils their due, they did prove that a populace with knowledge of ak-47s could indeed defeat both the Russians and eventually the Americans, the two most well armed armies in the world. Yes it is via asymmetric warfare, any revolution in America would be asymmetric warfare, just as the original was, with folks like Ethan Allen and Mad Anthony Wayne copying guerilla warfare from the Native Americans.

Yes, eventually Nukes would start flying, but then Beijing and Moscow would be forced to realize that as much as they can handle the cold, Nuclear Winter would clean Earth's slate, by killing all of humanity off, and they are not stupid enough to forget what M.A.D stands for.

None of this removes the irony that the nation that spends so much on the army is, by virtue of simple Geography, one of the nations most protected from foreign invasion. Yes China and India have the raw manpower, but getting them across the Pacific or Atlantic would be a feat that would exhaust even the most abundant of resources.

Now let me give the author his due. He does lay out the true source of gun culture, however, he makes the same mistake that others do. Yes, you can prove with facts that you know what you are talking about, you can prove that you know more about guns than this gun nut will ever know. However, facts only work with those that can accept facts, and when this gun nut is so filled with fantasies that their guns can make them get their way, you might as well be trying to play chess with a drunk. The one thing, which he does do, is point out that no, guns will NOT make you safe. The safety desire, and yes, the sex desire, that feeds gun culture is what needs to be drained, kind of the way that less teenagers start smoking nowadays, why, because ads have made smoking seem NOT COOL and STUPID.

[Squinch]

41. Great article. Common sense that seems to elude so many.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

76. When gun nuts lose their guns they act like someone cut off their piddler.

[Eleanors38]

80. Ah, the glory hole through the New Civilized DU!

(splort)

[PatrickforO]

77. Hey! Ever-buddy knoz Obama's gonna take ur gunz!

We have a right to our gunz and our Biblez. Good Christians is gonna buy AK-47s and if'n any gummint varmint comes and tries to take 'em away frum us they'll have to pry them frum our dead handz.

So there!

[Night Watchman]

79. Because They're Detached from Reality

Simple!